Remember Proposition 204 in the 2017 election, also known as Strong Start Tucson? If it passed, it would have raised local taxes to provide quality early childhood education to children in Tucson whose parents can’t afford to pay for it. The proposition went down by a wide margin.
In a reasonably progressive town like Tucson which regularly elects Democratic mayors, city council members and legislators, you might expect Prop. 204 to do better than it did. The problem was, progressives were split. I was for the measure, but lots of people I usually agree with were against it. They supported the idea of expanding early childhood education to reach more children, especially children of low income parents, but they objected to the funding mechanism, the way the program was to be administrated and the fact that it stopped at the Tucson city limits. Those were valid concerns. I just thought, as a strong supporter of early childhood education, the city couldn’t afford to pass up the opportunity to give a literal Strong Start to our children and our city. Both will benefit from giving young children a high quality, early start on their educations. Prop. 204 was an opportunity I feared would never come again.
Well, the idea is back in a new form. It’s being called Pima County Preschool Investment Program. It’s no longer limited to Tucson, it covers all of Pima county. It doesn’t create any new taxes. And it will be administered through a contract with First Things First, a statewide program with funds which are earmarked to address early childhood development, education, and health concerns for children from birth to age 5, but doesn’t have nearly enough funding to meet the statewide need.
A broad group of people and organizations in Pima county’s public and private sectors, many of whom opposed Prop. 204, have coalesced around PCPIP. The Southern Arizona Leadership Council supports it. So does Chris Magnus, Tucson Police Chief. The list includes Children’s Action Alliance, the University of Arizona, First Things First, Metropolitan Education Commission and Center for Economic Integrity. Local school superintendents support it and school districts have agreed to participate by providing early childhood education or adding to what they’re already providing if PCPIP becomes a reality. Some organizations have pledged financial support.
What’s needed is a funding base. As happens so often, money is the sticking point.
PCPIP wants Pima County to pick up a substantial portion of the costs of the program and pledge to continue supporting it in the future. That’s a big ask.
We’re coming up on budget time for the Pima County Board of Supervisors. Three, maybe four of the Supervisors are supportive of the idea, but the question is, can they find a way to carve out a portion of the county budget for PCPIP?
In the best case scenario, PCPIP will have to ramp up over a number of years to meet the demand for early childhood education in Pima county.
For one thing, the infrastructure isn’t there. Even if school districts add space in their schools to supplement the existing preschool facilities, that will only begin to fill the community’s needs. If PCPIP gets off the ground, it will be the beginning of a building process to create space for all the children whose parents want to put their children into early childhood education programs.
On top of that, there’s no way to come up with all the money that would be needed in the first round of funding. In 2017, Prop. 204 estimated the half penny sales tax it called for would bring in about $50 million a year. And that was for the city of Tucson, not all of Pima County. It’s hard to imagine Pima county coming up with that kind of money.
But with some coaxing, we could see the first stages of the PCPIP vision happen. Many of the county’s heavy hitters have joined in the fight. I imagine they are already working behind the scenes to build support among the county supervisors. And you can expect to see people crowding into the Board of Supervisors’ meeting room when budget discussions begin, putting community pressure on the board to get PCPIP up and running.
Stay tuned.
This article appears in Mar 28 – Apr 3, 2019.
First, every effort to enhance educational opportunities in Arizona should be supported and approved provided they answer to a locally elected governing body. The County Supervisors and the county budget should not be responsible for funding education. Approval should be limited until a local tax plan can be approved the voters. While personally I would favor using the property tax, a sales tax is an alternative. Citizens realizing the pressure on county revenue and the overwhelming county budget requirements just might answer with a favorable vote. That and the proponents for early childhood education would have Pima County Preschool Investment Program “up and running” to judge the benefits. Faced with continuing with a voter approved reliable revenue source could be the correct answer.
Strong Start
First Things First
Head Start
How many different ways can you fool the public into funding another pie in the sky educational boondoggle? Fix the mess we have before making a bigger mess.
Teachers,… leave those kids alone.
ED, My oh my, what an intellectual response. Mess?? Explain!!
Oops, you forgot to define quality in quality early childhood education. And you forgot to state whether there are enough credentialed early childhood educators (to me that means a college degree in child development and / or early childhood education) to fill the positions that will be created. Professionally educated staff are more important than infrastructure. You also forgot to mention how much the professional staff will be paid. You dont get college grads these days without paying enough to help them chip away at the tens of thousands of dollars of debt most college students graduate with in this fabulous country, David, where your party has long since lost its grip on anything resembling effective labor and / or education advocacy. All you and your friends do is beg for more funds for vaguely defined publicly funded programs that produce shoddier and shoddier results. Why is this? Because while people like you apparently have the energy to beg, you have nothing resembling the level of energy…or concern…or skin in the game…or honesty…needed to WATCH what the machine you affiliate DOES with the funds you beg. Mores the pity.
A note to The devil is in the deatails: You’re right, I didn’t go into the meaning of “Quality.” However, that is part of the PCPIP proposal, both in terms of the facilities and employees. It’s one of the reasons any increase in early childhood education will have to be ramped up slowly. In a short piece, I can’t cover everything.
Oh, and a trivial note from an old English teacher. The devil should be in the “details,” not the “deatails.” I know: picky, picky, picky.
Yes, David, when typing on my phone I do sometimes have typos. Nice of you to point them out. Another error is in the second to last sentence: it should read “…WATCH what the machine you affiliate WITH does with the funds you beg.” The “WITH” I capitalize here was accidentally omitted in the post, which I composed quickly in my car after reading your post while working out at the gym. And while we’re being picky, let’s note that “the machine with which you affiliate” would be preferable to “the machine you affiliate with.” Thus, I give you a C- on catching all the composed-in-haste errors in my comment.
A pet peeve: when I submit from my mobile phone (but not from my computer) much of my punctuation gets deleted. Could you please have that fixed? I hate to see abominations like “Mores the pity,” when what I entered, correctly punctuated, was “More’s the pity.”
Thanks.
And oh, by the way, lest we get lost in formalism here and lose sight of the content: I do think you and all of your fellow travelers should “watch — and report on — what the machine with which you affiliate does with the funds you beg.” The lingering question, which you have not answered here or elsewhere, is why you fail to do so.
Cheers, David.
Reply from another former English teacher: I’m just a guy who sits in front of his laptop at home composing posts and sending them to the Weekly. I have nothing to do with the inner workings of the Weekly, technical or otherwise. Tirion Morris is the web boss. You can contact her at tirion@tucsonlocalmedia.com.
No response to the substantive points about education policy, education funding and their relation to the local political scene, just excuses (In a short piece, I cannot cover everything) and diversions (information about whom to contact about punctuation conversions in comments submitted from cell phones).
Par for the course here; duly noted.
Seems a good idea to continue taking your recommendations as really solid, reliable indicators of what propositions should be most strongly opposed.
Great update, David – thanks for sharing.
I hope PCPIP maintains it’s initial momentum. As you have consistently noted, there is already substantial cost/benefit evidence supporting this type of early childhood education investment, and established program models to inform the local PCPIP design.
Like many Pima County business, our business relies on a thriving, educated workforce. Good to see so many from the public & private sector who are willing to get this initiative underway.
Great Discussion. Too bad a broader range of the community are not involved and exposed to “problems and solutions” regarding early childhood education. The foundation on which we build holds the key to a solid structure. Education is the pillar upon which a rich and successful life is developed. Each and every person benefits from an educated society. It is not just just an investment for a single individual, education lifts the entire community.
GOOD education lifts the entire community. And good education is achieved through both funding and VIGILANCE in overseeing how the funding is applied. Too many Dems buy the line that good education is achieved through funding alone, or they are too lazy to do the difficult (and often disillusioning) work of watching what happens with MORE FUNDING!!! when it is granted.
Still waiting for the details on this fabulous program which David found it too difficult to supply in such a short post. HIGH QUALITY preschool comes with a high cost. Seems quite likely that this program is about using public funds to achieve the kind of social change Dems like to try to use our tax dollars to leverage: more women in the work force, more children in low quality group care. Absent the details on what kinds of programs we are talking about with what kind of staff and wages, which neither David nor Parent X provide, we simply dont know whether this will promote good education or low quality care that feeds a political machine, like TUSDs day care centers.
Caveat emptor, as David likes to say. When theyre selling you good education without telling you what that means, more likely than not it will be a pig in a poke.
“VIGILANCE” on ALL Government spending is good advice. In addition wishful thinking that awareness and involvement of the community in public affairs is happening. Do not short change education because we suspect political motives behind funding programs. Many Democrats support education even when many of them are victims of regressive taxation to pay for those programs and projects. Branding does not lift anything. {Democrats are lazy} On examination research the “high cost” of the lack of education and skill training. Spend wisely today or surely spent more tomorrow. Yes, “vigilance” is necessary but no excuse to ignore public need such as “early child education'” and “preschool” investment.
Programs can be designed to be transparent and to interact constructively with (and even to encourage) vigilance. Dont tell me Southern Arizona Democratic Party laziness and negligence in following up with applications of public funding in education is branding. Ive seen it directly, up close and personal, over the course of several years, both at the ground level in schools and at the governance level in TUSD. Ive also seen that a lot of Democrats retire here from other locales and the local machine takes advantage of their gullibility when confronted with statements like GOOD EDUCATION LIFTS THE COMMUNITY. This isnt Minnesota; it isnt Vermont. Take the blinders off and start looking at what actually goes on in THIS context. Sylvia Campoys reports on funding applications are always a good place to start. They should be required reading for anyone who wants to follow Pied Pipers like David Safier and Parent X.