Shoddy pre-K plan deserves no more than Bush's veto
By HOWARD TROXLER
Published June 3, 2004
In 2002, the people of Florida voted to create a voluntary, universal system of pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds. This new "pre-K" system is supposed to begin with the 2005 school year.
It was a popular idea. It passed by almost 60 percent of the vote. Even Gov. Jeb Bush, who is wary of costly constitutional amendments, was enthusiastic. Everybody agreed that a good pre-K system gets more kids ready for school.
What could be more important?
The specific measure that was approved by the voters required that Florida's pre-K system be "voluntary, high-quality, free and delivered according to professionally accepted standards."
High-quality.
Professionally accepted standards.
After the election, the governor's second-in-command, Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings, presided over an advisory council to recommend what Florida's pre-K system should look like.
Jennings' council met nine times and came up with a fine report.
So far, so good.
Do you sense a "but" coming?
Well, this is Florida, isn't it? You don't think we're just gonna run out and do something forward-thinking and enlightened that puts us far ahead of other states, do you?
No. We have the Legislature to knock that silly idea right out of our heads. And the final version of pre-K had to be passed by the Legislature.
When you think about it, pre-K started out in the Legislature with two strikes against it, especially in the House under Speaker Johnnie Byrd.
First, it was something that had been ordered by the voters. The Legislature these days is more likely to give up its free meals and pensions than actually respect the will of the voters as expressed in a referendum.
Second, the subject was education. Because Byrd's House has exhibited a weird, ideological hostility to public schools (or, as they are sometimes called in the House, "government schools"), Byrd's House took up the idea of universal pre-K with all the enthusiasm of a kid eating Brussels sprouts.
So what actually came out of the Legislature was not too much more than gussied-up day care.
There were lower qualifications for teachers. There were only three hours of pre-K a day. Jennings' council had recommended up to six hours a day, with at least four being "high-quality instruction."
There were larger class sizes, smaller ratios of adults to students, lesser accreditation and training standards.
Proud of this puny version of pre-K, Byrd issued a victory statement that was filled with his usual jargon:
"We are obviously very pleased. This bill takes on the challenge of a voluntary pre-K program while maintaining our values of less government, lower taxes, individual freedom, personal responsibility, and empowering families."
Whatever.
The question now is whether Bush, who is disappointed with the bill, should veto it, as several newspaper editorials around the state have urged. The alternative is to sign it into law and then try to get the Legislature to improve it next year, when there still will be time to get it right.
I asked Bush via e-mail: Will you veto it? Or is there anything to be said for signing and trying to make a deal?
"Yes," he replied, "there is much to be said for signing the bill, getting an agreement in principle on how to improve it and give everyone time to get ready for this exciting opportunity for our state.
"Don't know if this will happen, but it is my desire."
He probably is doing the grown-up thing. After all, next year the Legislature will have new leaders, Tom Lee in the Senate and Allan Bense in the House, and everybody says Bense is going to be a more reasonable speaker than Byrd was. A better deal is possible.
Not being governor, I have the luxury of being a brat. If it were me I would take out my stamp that says "VETO" and kick that sucker back to the Legislature with a one-sentence note scrawled on one of those little yellow stickers: "This is not what the voters meant."
