Easy Voter Guide For new or busy voters (in 5 languages) Smart Voter Your Ballot & Poll Place On Propositions Ballot Measure Analysis Easy Voter Guide Pros & Cons ENGLISH SPANISH Prop 81 Prop 81 Prop 82 Prop 82 Print (PDF) Print (PDF) In Depth Prop 81 Prop 82 About Ballot Measures Background Bond Financing The Initiative Process How to Evaluate Other Absentee Voting Register to Vote

PRESCHOOL EDUCATION.
TAX ON INCOMES OVER $400,000 FOR INDIVIDUALS; $800,000 FOR COUPLES.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

THE QUESTION

Should California create a new preschool program for children, funded by an increase in personal income taxes?

THE SITUATION

Most California children attend some preschool or child care program. A program where children are cared for in groups is referred to as center-based care. Approximately 62 percent of the state's 4-year olds attend such programs, the participation rate varying widely by family income level. About one-half of these children are served by existing state and federal programs, designed primarily for low-income families. There are two main state programs, costing approximately $360 million annually, and the federal Head Start program in California costs $500 million annually.

THE PROPOSAL

The Preschool for All Act (PFA) creates a free, voluntary preschool program for all four-year-olds beginning in the fall of 2010. The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) would have overall responsibility for these preschool services, which would include:

1. a program that runs a minimum of three hours per day, 180 days per year;
2. state preschool standards and guidelines coordinated with K-3 education; and
3. minimum class size and staffing requirements.

The program would be funded by an additional 1.7 percent income tax rate (effective January 1, 2007) on individuals' taxable income over $400,000 ($800,000 for married couples). These added revenues would not be considered for any limit on state expenditures, nor when calculating educational minimum funding guarantees.

Preschool teachers and instructional aides would be required to meet higher educational standards. The initiative would provide up to $700 million to address educational requirements.

Under certain circumstances the Legislature could require a parental fee, but no child could be denied access based on an inability to pay. The amount the state is now spending for state preschool and child care would have to be maintained, and PFA funds could not be used to supplant state or federal funding for children with special needs.

FISCAL EFFECT

The increase in personal income taxes would result in revenues for 2006-07 of roughly $500 million, increasing to about $2.6 billion by 2010-11; such amounts are expected to fully fund the educational expenditures required by the measure.

WHAT A YES OR NO VOTE MEANS

A YES vote means that the California Constitution and state law would be amended to create a new preschool program, funded by an increase in personal income tax rates for high-income taxpayers.

A NO vote means that the proposed amendments to the California Constitution and state law would not be made to create this preschool program. The current federal and state programs would be unchanged.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Prop. 82 strengthens all education by giving children the right to a high-quality preschool education. It encourages parental involvement, allowing choice among public, private and nonprofit preschool providers.
• Prop. 82 invests in our children and our future, resulting in savings from reduced remedial education, lower high school drop out rates, and the economic benefits of a better-educated workforce.
• Prop. 82 protects taxpayers with strict financial controls and limits administrative expenses.

OPPONENTS SAY

• Analysts expect this program will cost much more than predicted, with related cuts in education that worsen the current fragile quality of K-12 public schools. Public preschools will put private preschools out of business.
• California already provides preschool and daycare programs for families in need. We should properly fund existing programs and make them readily available to those who truly need them.
• This measure will have a significant negative impact on revenues for other important programs such as schools, public safety, transportation and health care.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

PRO: 310-786-7605, www.yeson82.com

CON: 916-218-6640, www.NoProp82.org