Everyone agrees that early childhood education and care is important for young children from the ages of birth up to 5 years, when the brain is rapidly developing.
The efforts this year, on the ballot measure known as Proposition 204, are admirable, but the language in this proposition raised concerns for me, for future mayor and councils and for the good citizens of Tucson. It asks the voters to approve something with no specifics and to be trustful that the details would come if the ballot measure passes.
Proposition 204 does not state which schools would qualify for the program, if they have to be within city limits, be public, private or charter or sets out the definition for “high quality preschools.”
It does not state how children are selected, the amount of the voucher or the amount of the pre-school education tuition and there are no reporting requirements on whether the program is succeeding. The proposition adds a half-cent to the city sales tax with no sunset date. Meaning this could bring in more than $50 million annually, of which 8 percent, or $4 million would be used for “administrative expenses,” which is also not defined.
People are also reading…
In May this year, voters approved Proposition 101, the half-cent sales tax measure to go toward police, fire and roads. There was a specific list of items for our police department and fire department, and also laid out a map of roads to be worked on. Proposition 101 required citizen oversight of both public safety expenditures, as well as for the road work and to report on the progress to mayor and council and the citizens of Tucson. The ballot language did not allow for funding to be swept or moved to other projects and the additional sales tax would last for only five years.
Unfortunately, Proposition 204 does not follow the good example set by Proposition 101.
Proposition 204 would have the mayor and council create a seven-member commission that would decide the criteria for “high quality preschools,” eligibility for children, program reporting requirements, voucher amounts and hire a nonprofit to oversee and operate the program.
Mayor and council have created many boards and commissions, but there are none currently that would have the scope or power this proposed commission would have. What would be the criteria or guidelines to select a nonprofit organization to spend $42 million? Proposition 204 does not spell that out. What would be the accountability of the commission created? Would it be up to mayor and council to keep or remove an appointee?
Voters across Tucson will also be considering school bond or budget override measures for the Tucson Unified School District, Sunnyside Unified School District, as well as the Flowing Wells School District. Proposition 204 will appear on the ballot alongside these measure. There is a problem of voter confusion, since TUSD is compromised of an area completely within Tucson city limits, while Sunnyside has two-thirds of its district within city limits and roughly half of Flowing Wells School District is within the City of Tucson. This could affect these school districts proposals, with some residents voting on Proposition 204 and others not because of their residence.
Any tax proposal on a ballot for voter review and consideration should have a time review clause or sunset date. Any measure’s ballot language should be specific in its intentions and purpose. Proposition 204 does not do that and leaves out the education professionals as part of the proposed program and process.
Education is the key to success but Proposition 204 is not the right answer.
Fimbres
Richard Fimbres is the council member for Tucson’s Ward 5.