I really don't even know where to begin. For starters the early education system is going about guiding children in the right direction ALL WRONG....Like the old saying, "You can't teach a fish how to climb a tree" or he will fail and feel like a failure, basically. If you for one know whether the child is an extravert or an introvert from the very beginning. At this point you already know that an introvert will probably not want to be a sales-person (for example). The introvert may end up being an IT Tech since people might give that person anxiety. Why force something. The reason why a lot of people fail in life is because we are trying to put a SQUARE in a CIRCLE hole. Why would we do this? When you leave HIGH SCHOOL you should know how to balance a check book NOT LEARN ALGEBRA AND OTHER MATH that will never be used in life. WHY? Why would we need to learn Math we will never use? High Schoolers need responsibility skills. It's crazy how we force people who are not good at math to struggle to get through math they will NEVER use in a life time. INSANE.....However if you are geared to being an Engineer then this math would be GREAT for you and will take you far. So I do believe there needs to be major major changes in the curriculum and the kids that struggle in certain areas. NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO COLLEGE and you should always graduate High School with a TRADE of some sort to be able to get a job....TYPING, COMPUTER PROGRAMMING, ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS, COSMOTOLOGY, DRAFTING, ELECTRONICS.....EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A BASIC SKILL WILL LEAVING HIGH SCHOOL. I raised two ADHD daughters and I know the struggles my children had just to simply graduate HIGH SCHOOL.

I am against this bill which seeks to exclude military child care programs from the definition of "publicly funded provider" in early childhood care and education laws. Fragmentation of Standards: By excluding military child care from the definition, this bill could lead to a fragmentation of quality standards in early childhood education. Military programs, although accredited, might not be subject to the same state oversight, potentially creating disparities in care quality. Equity in Education: This exclusion might undermine the principle of equity in early childhood education, where all publicly funded programs should adhere to similar standards to ensure every child, regardless of their family's military status, receives equivalent quality care. Public Accountability: Military child care, even if funded differently, still utilizes public funds through federal allocations. Excluding them from state definitions reduces public accountability over how these funds are used in early childhood education within the state. Integration with Community Services: Military families are part of the broader community, and their child care needs should be integrated with local services to foster community cohesion. This bill could isolate military child care, reducing opportunities for community integration. Regulatory Oversight: While these programs are accredited by DoD-approved bodies, state oversight provides an additional layer of protection and consistency. Removing them from state regulation might diminish this oversight, affecting the safety and educational standards. Funding Clarity: The bill's language might create confusion over what constitutes "publicly funded" if military programs, which receive federal funding, are excluded. This could complicate funding discussions and allocations, potentially impacting how resources are distributed for early childhood education. Support for Military Families: While the intent might be to streamline or recognize the unique nature of military child care, this exclusion could inadvertently reduce state support or recognition for military families in local early childhood education policies, affecting their access to state-level benefits or programs. I oppose this legislation due to concerns over fragmentation of standards, equity, public accountability, community integration, regulatory oversight, funding clarity, and the potential impact on support for military families, advocating for a comprehensive approach where all publicly funded early childhood care providers, including military ones, are subject to similar state regulations and oversight for the benefit of all children in Virginia.

As a mother of two, I know how essential early childcare is—and also how much money it costs. When we offer our residents affordable childcare, we make it possible for more people to work and contribute to a better society for all of us. We also invest in our future by investing in our children—and giving all of them a caring environment for learning and growing. This bill is a major step in the right direction, and I urge you to support it!

I am definitely against this bill which aims to create a statewide, unified, universally accessible, public-private system for early childhood care and education. Financial Burden: Implementing a universally accessible system where every three or four-year-old has a guaranteed slot, especially with provisions for free or reduced-cost services, would place an enormous financial strain on the state, potentially diverting funds from other critical educational or public services. Quality Concerns: Mandating universal access might lead to a dilution of quality in early childhood education programs as the demand could outstrip the supply of high-quality providers, leading to rushed expansion or lowering of standards to meet the requirement. Administrative Overload: The Department of Education would face significant challenges in establishing and maintaining a comprehensive online program, including the development of content, ensuring technological accessibility, and managing a hybrid learning model. This could overwhelm current administrative capabilities. Inequity in Implementation: The sliding scale for determining cost based on family means could be complex to implement fairly across the Commonwealth, potentially leading to disparities in how families are assessed and supported, creating new forms of inequity. Logistical Challenges: Ensuring each family has access to a slot involves logistical nightmares, including transportation, staffing, and facility availability, particularly in rural or underserved areas where infrastructure might not support such a mandate. Digital Divide: While the online program aims to be universally accessible, it overlooks the digital divide where not all families have reliable internet or the necessary technology, potentially excluding those who could benefit most from early education. Community Center Utilization: Using community centers or libraries as learning hubs for hybrid learning might strain these facilities, which are often underfunded and might not have the capacity or resources to support educational activities effectively. Parental Choice: This bill could limit parental choice by imposing a system where families might be assigned to slots that do not align with their preferences for educational philosophy, location, or type of care, reducing the personalization of early childhood education. Delayed Effective Date: The delay until July 1, 2026, might seem like a planning buffer, but it also postpones addressing current needs, potentially leaving children without adequate early education support in the interim. Public-Private Partnership Concerns: The integration of public and private sectors in such a system could lead to conflicts of interest, where profit motives might overshadow educational quality, or where public funds subsidize private enterprises without clear accountability. I strongly oppose this legislation due to the financial implications, potential quality degradation, administrative burden, implementation inequities, logistical challenges, the digital divide issue, strain on community facilities, reduction in parental choice, the delay in addressing current needs, and concerns over public-private partnerships. A more targeted, flexible, and resource-conscious approach to early childhood education would better serve Virginia's families without the risks this bill presents.

Comments Document

The attached comments express a particular concern about the overall agenda that HB 1972 advances.