The most important vote you cast on Nov. 4 could be on Constitutional Amendment No 4: Relating to Early Childhood Education.

On that date, Hawaii voters will decide whether the appropriation of public funds shall be permitted for the support or benefit of private early childhood education programs.

The potential cost of this program to the citizens of Hawaii is significant, but has not been firmly established. But since enabling legislation has not been written, we can only guess what the educational program will look like.

In an effort to respond to public questions, the Hawaii League of Women Voters has compiled an analysis of pros and cons on the question of using public funds for private preschools from public statements and testimony on legislation surrounding this issue. Please seriously consider our pro-con analysis posted on the League of Women Voters Hawaii website in order to cast an informed vote www.lwv-hawaii.com/conam4.pdf.

Supporters say the approved amendment would allow the state to access federal funding, that passage of the Con Am will support K-12 education.

This position would require 3- and 4-year-olds to be tested on readiness skills, with scripted programs as intervention, and participate in ongoing assessments that align with the state Department of Education’s Common Core academic curriculum. These are the tenets of pre-kindergarten or universal preschool.

Is that what we want for all Hawaii’s keiki? Or do we want preschools in Hawaii to have the autonomy to design programs that respect the diversity of development and culture of our keiki?

Those who oppose using public money for private preschools, do so because children with disabilities are not included among the students required to be served under ConAm No. 4.

This poses questions of equity and access because private providers are not required by law to be accessible in the way public schools are required to provide access for all students.

Everyone on both sides of the issue agrees on the value for dollars spent on a developmentally appropriate early education. And some of the statements on both sides of the issue, such as "developmentally appropriate learning experiences for children before they turn 5 yield positive long-term benefits" are well reasoned, insightful and backed by valid research and offer grounds for arriving at choices that make sense.

But since the Legislature has not funded a specific program, voters would be approving a process without a specific cost and a clear picture of the educational expectations for our 3- and 4-year-olds.

Even with the volume of rhetoric floating about through well-funded plugs from supporters, most citizens in the state are still in the dark about the basics of the program. Will it be readiness testing for a standardsbased K-6 program, or will it be a play-oriented developmental program?

Citizens deserve to know what their vote really means.