21 Reasons Why the San Antonio Pre-K Tax Plan Is a Bad Idea

Transcription

1 October Reasons Why the San Antonio Pre-K Tax Plan Is a Bad Idea By Jeff Judson * On November 6, voters in San Antonio, Texas will vote on whether the city should own and operate a network of early childhood education centers. The initiative is controversial, and rightly so. There are many reasons to question whether such a network, which would operate in competition with existing private and public day-care and pre-school programs, is the best or even an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. This Policy Brief describes the initiative and then presents 21 reasons the plan is a bad idea. Sources for facts and numbers that appear here are readily found from public sources, which the author is willing to help readers find. Background There are many reasons to question whether such a network, which would operate in competition with existing private and public day-care and preschool programs, is the best or even an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. Mayor Julian Castro and the City of San Antonio have placed a proposition on the upcoming November ballot to enact a sales tax to create a new Municipal Development Corporation that would build and operate new early childhood education centers around the city. According to the city manager s Web site, 1 Pre-K 4 SA is designed to improve the quality and quantity of prekindergarten (pre-k) childhood education for four-year-olds city wide focusing on numeracy and literacy as well as providing professional development for pre-k through grade 3 educators. The initiative would be funded by the city s remaining 1/8 cent sales tax. The initiative would be governed by a city council-created corporation with a council-appointed 11 member board. The * Jeff Judson is a senior fellow and member of the Board of Directors of The Heartland Institute, a national free-market research and education organization based in Chicago. A more complete bio appears on page 8. For more information about The Heartland Institute, visit our Web site at or call 312/ for a free prospectus. 1 The following description borrows from the language used on the city manager s Web site at

2 city council would approve the program s annual budget. The city has promised to include annual performance audits and assessments to measure success that would be conducted by independent third-party entities. The program would be for an eight-year period and would be subject to voter re-authorization in November Four Education Excellence Centers would be located in four different quadrants of the city, each with approximately 50,000 square feet consisting of classrooms, family support rooms, teacher training areas, and playgrounds to support approximately 500 four-year-olds. Over eight years, Pre-K 4 SA would consist of an initial three-year build-up in enrollment and five years of full enrollment and program evaluation. In years four through eight, 3,700 children would be enrolled annually, with 2,000 enrolled in city-built model centers. Enrollment would be free of charge for students who meet at least one of the state eligibility criteria. A four-year-old is eligible if he/she or his/her families are: Note: Children with these characteristics are already eligible for free pre-k services. # eligible for free or reduced lunch (is at 185 percent of the federal poverty level); or # unable to speak and comprehend the English language; or # homeless; or # the child of an active-duty member of the armed forces of the United States; or # the child of a member of the armed forces of the United States who was injured or killed while serving on active duty; or # is or has been in foster care. Note: Children with these characteristics are already eligible for free pre-k services. Enrollment would be chosen through lottery systems administered by participating school districts. Funding for Pre-K 4 SA is contingent on the November 6, 2012 special sales tax ballot measure. More information about the program is available from Rebecca Flores, the City of San Antonio s Education Coordinator, at 210/ Reasons Why Pre-K 4 SA Is a Bad Idea 1. Citizens are being asked to vote before fundamental issues have been decided by the city. The city has not determined a curriculum or determined the location of its four model centers; has not named the (appointed, not elected) board members of a newly created bureaucracy to govern the program; has not determined the testing and accountability system; has not signed -2-

3 any agreements with school districts or determined which, if any, school districts would participate; and does not have a plan to transport children to/from the centers. This effort is being rushed and is not ready for a vote. 2. Few, if any, school districts may participate in the city program, which would disqualify children in these districts from participating. The city is currently negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with local school districts. No school districts have signed on, and it appears that a majority of school districts may not participate, judging from comments made by school board members and administrators in the public negotiating sessions. As a result, thousands of San Antonio citizens would be paying the new tax for a program their own children are ineligible to participate in. Negotiations on the MOUs are scheduled to continue far beyond the election. 3. Voters are being asked to approve a new tax to create a Municipal Development Corporation that is not bound to the promise of providing pre-k education. This corporation can reinvent itself according to the political whims of its unelected governing board. This corporation can reinvent itself according to the political whims of its unelected governing board to offer after-school programs for primary and secondary schools, job training, funding for public and private junior colleges, public and private colleges and universities, technical institutions, and for scholarships. It can use the funds to promote literacy. And if that doesn t provide enough flexibility, the city can fund any other undertaking that the corporation s board determines will directly facilitate the development of a skilled workforce. 4. Is creating an overlapping program to teach four-year-olds really the best way to achieve a skilled workforce? It is highly unlikely that Pre-K 4 SA would measurably improve the workforce in San Antonio. The fade out effect of pre-k is well-documented and presents the most troublesome hurdle for universal pre-k advocates. Even kids who have all the benefits of the best pre-k programs see those effects dissolve as they move through the low-performing public school system. Research shows that, even by the first grade, the effects of pre-school are lost if the elementary instruction is not up to par. Related to this, when this program comes up for review in eight years, how would we know if the 12-year-old graduates of the program in the sixth grade are ready for the workforce? Is a small positive impact on academic achievement, if such an effect is even found, relevant to the goal of improving the city s workforce? -3-

4 5. It is very expensive. The new 1/8 cent tax would collect more than $248 million over nine years, but the city assumes only a 3 percent annual increase in sales tax revenues, compared to the 6 percent average increase over the past eight years (even factoring in recession years) and the 9 percent increase last year. A more realistic 6 percent annual increase in sales tax revenues due to inflation and growth in the economy would mean this program would actually cost closer to $280 million. 6. Elite private schools are substantially less expensive. According to the cost projections of the city manager, the city would spend $15,500 per child each year for pre-k instruction in the proposed model centers to be built around the city. This is one-third (1/3) more than the highest private tuition in the city. If sales tax revenues are higher than expected, as noted above, then this cost per child would likely increase even further. Taxpayers would spend $35 million to build four new centralized model centers at yet-to-be-determined locations in the city s four corners, even though there has been no evidence reported that the city needs new facilities for this service. 7. The city program would pay abovemarket salaries for teachers. According to city budget documents, teachers would earn $64,500 and, with annual pay raises, $79,933 by These salaries are not necessary to attract highly qualified teachers, would distort the labor market for pre-k teachers, and would likely draw teachers from existing pre-k programs. 8. A lack of pre-k facilities is not an identified problem. Taxpayers would spend $35 million to build four new centralized model centers at yet-to-be-determined locations in the city s four corners, even though there has been no evidence reported that the city needs new facilities for this service. San Antonio already has 678 pre-k facilities. The model centers would each house 500 children, who would have to be driven or bused to/from the facility each day, outside the neighborhoods where the children live. 9. The costs are understated. Proponents of Pre-K 4 SA claim the median household would pay only $7.81 per year in new taxes. But dividing San Antonio s 450,000 households into $31 million yields $68.89 per year per household. Assuming half of the revenues are paid by businesses, which they would pass through to their customers, it is apparent we still would be paying much more than $7.81. The more important figure is not $31 million a year, but the $280 million complete cost of the program. That would be $622 per household. -4-

5 10. Is a new pre-k program really needed when so many children already are enrolled in pre-k? Sixty percent of Texas four-year-olds already are enrolled in government preschool (public pre-k, special education, Head Start). Forty-four percent of four-year-olds are enrolled in private preschool. (The total is 104 percent because some children are enrolled in both types of programs.) The vast majority of four-year-olds in San Antonio are already served by one of the 678 existing pre-k facilities in town or are eligible for free pre-k. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Texas has more children enrolled in pre-k than any other state, almost three times more children enrolled than the next highest ranked state (Illinois) and more than the next three states combined. In the Fall of 2009, the top five states enrolled the following children in pre-k: Texas 239,030; Illinois 84,727; California 71,783; Florida 51,495; and New York 51, How are existing pre-k programs not high quality? The implication of the city s arguments for Pre-K 4 SA is that current pre-k programs serving San Antonio s children are of poor quality, but there is little support for this conclusion. For instance, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University, the most The difference between half-day and full-day pre-k is lunch, recess, and an extra hour of instruction. Is this one-hour of instruction worth $280 million and a new city bureaucracy to manage it? effective preschool teachers have at least a four-year college degree and specialized training in early childhood. This study points out Texas is one of only 20 states already requiring public pre-k teachers to have four-year college degrees. Ask any of the 678 current public and private pre-k providers or the parents who enroll their children voluntarily if these programs are second-rate. 12. How does this program differ from day care? City officials bristle when Pre-K 4 SA is labeled as government funded day care, but that definition is unavoidable. The difference between half-day and full-day pre-k is lunch, recess, and an extra hour of instruction. Is this one-hour of instruction worth $280 million and a new city bureaucracy to manage it? 13. What expertise do city officials bring to the task? City officials intend to be the Johnny-come-lately experts on pre-k, retraining existing teachers and telling current providers how to restructure their programs. Yet the city has never been responsible for education in the past, and city officials have no demonstrated expertise in this field. -5-

6 If the city feels it has discovered the best pre-k delivery model, then it should advocate that model to existing providers Head Start centers, public school districts, and private providers. That is more reasonable than attempting to launch a network of new public pre-k programs, and wouldn t require collecting a new tax. 14. Aren t we spending enough on public education already? According to the Texas Comptroller, public education spending rose more than 95 percent in the past decade while enrollment grew only 20 percent. Spending has grown five times faster than enrollment. Everyone agrees education is a good thing, and Texans have been willing to pay more and more even through tough economic times. Is spending $230 million on Pre-K 4 SA, on top of current spending, really justified? We don t know who these 2,300 children are or what their individual needs are. We don t know their names or their addresses. We don t know if they are already in pre-k. They only theoretically exist in U.S. census data. only theoretically exist in U.S. census data. 15. We don t know who would enroll in Pre-K. The justification for the plan is the existence of 2,300 mystery children in San Antonio who are unserved by a pre-k program. But we don t know who these 2,300 children are or what their individual needs are. We don t know their names or their addresses. We don t know if they are already in pre-k. They 16. Parents may not transport their kids to centralized mega-facilities. Today, some 678 publicly funded or privately operated pre-k facilities serve children in San Antonio. The 2,300 children who Pre-K 4 SA proponents say would enroll in the program are already eligible for free-pre-k near where they live and their parents work. They may already be enrolled in private programs. It is highly unlikely that these parents would choose to drive, or allow their four-year-olds to be bused across town, to a new pre-k facility if they ve already decided not to take advantage of free pre-k near their home or work. 17. Pre-K is not necessary or appropriate for everyone. Some or perhaps most of the parents not already served by pre-k programs have made a conscious decision not to participate in pre-k. These parents may be homeschooling their children, or a relative or friend may be caring for them, or the child may not be developmentally ready for pre-k. All are valid reasons for a child not to be enrolled in pre-k. Research shows children are well prepared to enter school if they simply have someone reading to them at home, helping them to learn about shapes and colors and letters and numbers. That is why only certain children are eligible for free pre-k, because the research shows that homes -6-

7 providing this type of learning environment don t need outside pre-k to prepare their kids for school. 18. In addition to raising the sales tax, the city program consumes other revenues currently being used for pre-k. When a child leaves an existing pre-k program paid for by state and federal funds, those funds would follow the child to the Pre-K 4 SA program, which cannibalizes and undermines the viability of these existing programs. 19. The Pre-K 4 SA program would require massive teacher retraining. According to the SA2020 Brainpower Initiative Task Force Report, What to teach and how to teach it requires a massive training undertaking that requires ongoing support. This requires teachers and school The city, which has no direct jurisdiction or expertise in education, is presuming to take on the massive responsibility of training and retraining teaching professionals. leaders getting on the same track for an effective pre-k teaching approach (emphasis added). The city, which has no direct jurisdiction or expertise in education, is presuming to take on the massive responsibility of training and retraining the professionals who are currently delivering pre-k through our public school districts. Many experienced teachers doubt the need or value of such retraining. 20. The Pre-K 4 SA tax would be difficult to repeal even if the program fails. No matter how disappointing the results of Pre-K 4 SA prove to be, it would be hard not to continue the tax when it comes up for re-approval in eight years. Even if only half of the expected children enroll and even if assessments show no significant academic improvement among children, there are likely to be some minor improvements to motor skills, or emotional happiness, or tying one s shoes. It may be difficult for voters to end a program serving a thousand children under any circumstances, even if those children were doing better in the prior programs they were enrolled in. In addition, given the infinite flexibility in the governing statute that allows the Municipal Development Corporation to change its purpose for any other undertaking that the corporation s board determines would directly facilitate the development of a skilled workforce, who knows what the taxes would be spent on in eight years? 21. Maybe this is more about politics than children. It is odd that pre-k education is all of a sudden the one problem we must solve with a new tax. We haven t heard much from politicians about this problem until very recently. So why the -7-

8 sudden urgency for an expensive new program? Our mayor has caught national attention for his rising star status and is widely rumored to be destined for higher office. Every rising star politician wants education on his or her resume, and every city council member wants to name a government building after themselves or their mother. Is politics the real reason for Pre-K 4 SA? If so, it does not merit the public s approval. Is politics the real reason for Pre-K 4 SA? If so, it does not merit the public s approval. About the Author Jeff Judson is a senior fellow and member of the Board of Directors of The Heartland Institute. He is the former president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Under his leadership the TPPF became one of the largest and most influential free-market state think tanks in the U.S. and became known for its influence on public opinion, the news media, state legislators, and top elected officials. Prior to his work at the TPPF, Judson served as industry affairs director for USAA, a $66 billion insurance and financial services organization headquartered in San Antonio. Judson built a statewide coalition of business leaders to increase public awareness and support legislative solutions to curb lawsuit abuse. He also was responsible for property and casualty regulatory matters before the Texas State Board of Insurance. Later at USAA, he served as special assistant to Robert F. McDermott upon his appointment as chairman emeritus and president of La Cantera Development Company. In that position, Judson participated in the planning of major real estate investments and participated in numerous civic and political activities The Heartland Institute. Distributed by The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit and nonpartisan public policy research organization. Nothing in this report should be construed as reflecting the views of The Heartland Institute, nor as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of legislation. Additional copies of this Policy Brief are available for $6.95 from The Heartland Institute, One South Wacker Drive #2740, Chicago, IL 60606; phone 312/ ; fax 312/ ; think@heartland.org; Web -8-