WOULD YOU SUPPORT a program developed with years of solid research that puts young children and their parents on the right track for a lifetime of success? What if you could find a dedicated source of funding for that program, paid for by taxes on tobacco products, and the programs had local control and strict oversight?

That's exactly what the successful Five 5 programs have done since Prop. 10 was passed in 1998. Yet these programs seem to be a continual target of legislative raids. In 2000, voters overwhelmingly rejected a measure, funded mostly by tobacco interests, to overturn Prop. 10. Voters are being asked to circumvent it again through Prop. 1D on the May 19 special election ballot.

What Prop. 1D would do is take approximately $1.68 billion in dedicated funding away from established, locally controlled learning, health and family programs for preschoolers and their families and give the money instead to the state legislature to appropriate for non-specified state children's programs.

According to information provided by the Community Commission of Ventura County, "in Ventura County this would result in the loss of as much as $24.4 million over the next five years meant for sustaining current local First 5 Programs for our young children."

Yet, that is ISN'T made clear in the ballot proposition at all, as the video I've linked to above shows.

State Sen. Dave Cox has been trying to take down Prop. 10 for years. The Republican senator, who has seen more than his share of contributions from the tobacco industry, was one of the few GOP votes for the budget back in February, and many believe the run at Prop. 10 funding to help balance the state's budget was inserted to get the termed-out senator's vote.

Cox and others point to nearly $2 billion in county commission fund balances that is seemingly ripe for the taking. But, according to Michael M. Ruane, Executive Director of the Children and Families Commission of Orange County, "About half of the total, cited statewide fund balance is in two counties, Los Angeles and Orange counties. Of the Los Angeles total, over 60 percent is encumbered in a single multi-year program to provide preschool in the county's lowest income communities."

Ruane's letter can be downloaded here:

First 5 commissions are also hoping to use reserves to backfill funding as people quit smoking and tobacco tax revenues decline. Revenues are projected to decline about 3-4 percent each year.

FIRST 5 PROGRAMS are based on established research from many sources which indicate early childhood programs and intervention have long-term and profound impacts on keeping children in their important early formative years interested in learning and on a path to success.

The Ventura Neighborhood for Learning (VNfL) is a focus area for the Ventura Education Partnership and I have personally observed the good work they do. I spoke with VNfL Director Cathy Puccetti, who explained that an analysis she had read stated Prop. 1D would divert up to 65 percent of her program's operating revenues over the next five years.

Local First 5 funds are used for services such as childbirth preparation; parent and infant/toddler classes; preschool programs; summer pre-kindergarten; developmental check-ups; early dental care and education; health insurance access; parenting support and education; and resource and referral services.

"If the children don't get these services now they will need more later," Puccetti said. "We are also trying to get the parents to value education and their role in the family." VNfL's programs are neighborhood-based, and housed primarily in schools serving low-income populations. They are highly utilized by poor, hard-working families, Puccetti said. And some of these children have severe behavior issues that need to be addressed. "We provide services before children meet eligibility requirements for other funding streams."

Puccetti bristles at the often-heard charge that First 5 serves a primarily illegal immigrant population. "Some of our most needy families are not immigrant families," she said.

As tempting a target as preschool programs are to help solve the state's budget crisis, I urge the legislature and the voters to look elsewhere. Cutting off these thoughtful, long-term programs as a means of short-term financial gain is unwise.

"It's hard for people to think proactively," Puccetti said.

But we must try.

Note to my bloggers: We have recently moved the Star blogs to a new server which seems touchy about hyperlinks. If, while posting with a hyperlink, you receive the message that your comment is being held for approval, send me an email and I will fish it out of my spam filter.

I've been hunkered down for the past few days looking over documents and trying to make some sense of the budget package the governor just signed and how it will affect the bottom line of our schools. It's a precarious hodgepodge of $8.4 billion in cuts offset by reforms and accounting tricks. And all of this hinges on a package of ballot measures up in May, some designed to reshuffle prior ballot measures.

This labyrinthine budget reduces Prop. 98 guaranteed school funding from now through 2010 and then adds in another ballot measure to help to help restore the lost funds in 2011. Yet another tinkers with Prop. 98 formulas because the state now needs to borrow from future lottery earnings that would've gone to our schools.

Several of the seven ballot measures coming up on May 19 are so complicated that one could safely predict most voters probably won't do anything but vote no in protest, if they bother to cast a ballot at all.

AND THERE'S MORE: Categorical funding for many important programs is being slashed 20 percent between now and 2010. Included in this are programs for gifted students, college preparation, middle and high school counseling, deferred maintenance, technology, English language acquisition, summer school, ROP programs, and, of course, arts and music. In return, school districts are being given the "flexibility" to move these pots of funding around, but it's sort of like figuring out which child doesn't get dinner that night.

Upcoming federal money, which would help reduce state taxes, would have no effect on K-12 classroom funding this budget year, according to the California Department of Education. In the longer term, "these resources will have a minimal impact on reducing the size and magnitude of the state reductions in education funding," according to the California Association of School Business Officials.

AS YOU CAN SURMISE, budgeting for the next school year is like playing pin the tail on the weasel. It's a moving target which the dedicated folks who can actually figure this stuff out HAVE to wrestle with because the deadline for letting teachers know whether or not they will have jobs next year is March 13. Yet, they won't have any answers until June. Maybe.

Here in Ventura, school officials are looking at a mighty big gap. "... It will not look like business as usual here," said Superintendent Trudy Arriaga. "We should not be celebrating a state budget that is cutting $10 million out of a little budget like the Ventura Unified School District has.

"We should be outraged."

Most people just pay attention to all this by how it affects them personally. If you have a child in the public schools in California, expect bigger class sizes, no new textbooks, fewer supplies and technology, less remedial help, reduced maintenance and less emphasis on programs such as arts, music and physical education. Some familiar faces in teaching, staff and administration will be gone.

"About the only thing schools won't have less of is testing," said Ventura Unified Educators Association President Steve Blum. "The more-and-more testing crowd made sure state testing will be untouched.

"All this together is not good. This generation's shortsighted approach to preparing the next generation for the future is sad."