The recent furor surrounding Rob Reiner as Chairman of the California First 5 commission using his position to fund advertising to support his Initiative for universal pre-school has raised a lot of attention for the issue.  Lots of it not good attention and some are reacting untypically this political season, perhaps because of the stench of corruption in the air.

So the LA Times has printed a report that the Rob Reiner backed Initiative to ‘give’ pre-school to all children is popular with the general public.  I wonder how many people would answer a stranger asking if you favor helping children with a no?  I’m guessing not a lot, so I suggest everyone be even more skeptical than normal.  Here’s a quote from the LA Times :

Hollywood activist Rob Reiner’s Preschool for All initiative, Proposition 82 on the June ballot, would provide nearly $23 billion over the coming decade to enroll 70% of the state’s 4-year-olds in free, voluntary, half-day preschool programs.

Proponents, including business, labor and education leaders, say the initiative would help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged children and their middle-class peers as they enter kindergarten. They cite research findings that quality preschool decreases dropout rates, reduces crime and would save the state money on its investment.

That argument may be resonating with voters: A recent statewide survey by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 66% of Californians support Proposition 82.

I would usually expect the LA Times to basically end there and maybe go on for a bit about how wonderful this huge new program is going to be.  They’ve been relentlessly Liberal and pro-social spending for decades, including in their coverage of news stories.  Apparently they aren’t quite onboard with this one because they didn’t end there, the story continued (emphasis added):

As with the kindergarten movement that came before, however, not everyone is convinced. Initial opposition by anti-tax groups centered on the initiative’s funding mechanism, which targets the wealthiest Californians and imposes a 1.7% tax increase on individuals earning more than $400,000 and couples earning more than $800,000.

But there also is a growing body of dissent among early childhood education advocates who question whether a new government-run program for preschoolers, operated by the same troubled school systems that control kindergarten through 12th grade, is a good idea.

Many private community-based providers, meanwhile, believe that the measure, while well-meaning, is flawed and could end up forcing them out of business if they choose not to participate or don’t qualify. And they worry that it would lead to a standardized, one-size-fits-all academic curriculum that is inappropriate for young children.

Other opponents argue that the measure, expected to bring in $2.4 billion annually, would subsidize preschool entitlement for affluent families rather than specifically target poor children who gain the most from quality programs. The state would be taking on the burden of educating middle-class children whose families now shoulder those costs, the argument goes. And since an estimated 62% of the state’s roughly half a million 4-year-olds already attend preschool, the funds generated by the initiative probably would likely boost the enrollment rate by only a few percentage points.

So there it is, apparently they don’t like the program because it isn’t targetted only at the poor and will be a general entitlement that will be wasted mostly on the ‘affluent families’.  The rest is proper reportage but mostly there for filler and cover I think.  Its nice to see both sides of an issue covered though, quite refreshing.  If they keep it up through the election season they’d earn a lot of respect.  One can always hope.

Meanwhile there is going to be a lot more debate about this topic, should be interesting to see how the LA Times handles it.

I’m still waiting for Governor Arnold ‘The Terminator’ Schwarzenager to do something about Mr. Reiner.  If the Governor fails to remove Reiner the implication of improper conduct is bound to begin to attach to the Governor.  By not replacing him when he is supposed to by law, the Governor is sanctioning his activities.  With investigations begun that is not likely to be a good thing.