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.

I am against this bill which proposes changes to the Child Care Subsidy Program by adding a new priority group and setting timelines for service allocation. Potential for Inequality: Adding a seventh priority group specifically for families where a parent works for a publicly funded child care provider could create inequity among other eligible families who might have equally pressing needs but do not fit into this new category, potentially disadvantaging them. Administrative Complexity: Introducing another priority group increases the complexity of managing the waiting list, which could lead to administrative burdens on the Department of Education and local departments of social services, potentially slowing down the overall process of assigning slots. Resource Allocation: Prioritizing this group might divert resources from other families in need, especially if the number of slots available does not increase, leading to longer waits for those not in the new priority group. Exclusion Criteria: The exclusion of local school division employees but inclusion of Head Start program staff within public school buildings seems arbitrary and could cause confusion or perceived unfairness among similar public sector employees. 30-Day Target Unrealistic: Mandating a 30-day maximum for moving priority group families from the waiting list to services might be unrealistic given current capacities and could pressure local departments into making hasty decisions, potentially compromising the quality of service allocation or leading to burnout among staff. Regular Assessment Burden: Regular assessments of assignment times, while intended to improve efficiency, could add to the workload of already stretched departments, diverting focus from direct service delivery to administrative tasks. Reporting Requirements: The requirement for quarterly updates adds another layer of reporting which might not directly improve service delivery but increases the administrative load, possibly at the expense of direct family support. Focus on Employment Over Need: By prioritizing based on employment with a specific type of provider, the bill shifts focus from the broader needs of children and families to the employment status of the parent, which might not align with the program's primary goal of supporting child development. I oppose this legislation due to concerns over creating inequality, increasing administrative complexity, diverting resources, the arbitrary nature of exclusion criteria, the unrealistic timeline, additional assessment burdens, increased reporting, and the potential misalignment with the program's core objectives. A more inclusive, needs-based approach should be considered to ensure equitable access to child care subsidies for all eligible families.

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.

ForKids strongly support HB2451, which would bridge the benefits valley for families transitioning off TANF. As it stands, a minute increase in income triggers an abrupt and total loss of Child Care Subsidy assistance, forcing working parents to make the impossible choice between increased pay or hours and the child care they need to keep working. This cliff creates a disincentive for advancement and a long, steep climb to self-sufficiency. In our direct service work with the community, we see how this traps children and families in poverty. HB2451 seeks to remedy the problem by implementing a phased reduction model for the Child Care Subsidy Program.

Goodwill of Central and Coastal Virginia and the Virginia Goodwill Network recognize the profound negative impact of the benefits cliff on our associates, particularly working parents who are already struggling with other barriers to employment. The benefits cliff disproportionately impacts individuals who are working hard to improve their financial situation, yet face the devastating loss of critical benefits, such as childcare subsidies, as their wages increase. Access to affordable childcare is essential for working parents, but when these subsidies are removed, many are forced into impossible choices between advancing their careers and maintaining the support needed to provide for their families. This issue is particularly detrimental to those who are already facing challenges such as intellectual or developmental disabilities, a history of incarceration, or housing instability. Collectively, Goodwill organizations across the Commonwealth employ more than 3,300 Virginians. At Goodwill of Central and Coastal Virginia, our mission is changing lives—helping people help themselves through the power of work. Our job training programs, internal promotion opportunities, and career placement initiatives are designed to foster economic mobility, but these efforts are undermined when individuals lose access to childcare benefits. For families already stretched thin, the sudden inability to afford childcare often forces them to quit their jobs, stalling their upward mobility and perpetuating cycles of poverty. We believe HB2451 is critical to addressing the challenges posed by the benefits cliff and bringing much-needed attention to its impact on working parents and families. By advancing solutions to this issue, we can ensure that working parents—and others striving to overcome barriers to employment—can achieve long-term economic stability without losing access to the vital supports they need to succeed. Mark A. Barth President & CEO, Goodwill of Central and Coastal Virginia Chair, Virginia Goodwill Network

I am against this bill which proposes a phased reduction model for the Child Care Subsidy Program based on income increases. Complexity in Administration: Implementing a phased reduction model with incremental income tiers would add significant complexity to the administration of the Child Care Subsidy Program. This could lead to increased administrative costs and potential errors in calculating eligibility, affecting both the Department of Education and local departments of social services. Disincentive to Earn More: By reducing assistance proportionally with income increases, this model might inadvertently discourage families from seeking higher income opportunities, fearing the loss of child care support. This could conflict with broader economic mobility goals, where increased earnings should be encouraged without penalty. Uncertainty for Families: The phased reduction introduces uncertainty for families, who might not be able to predict exactly how much assistance they will lose with each income increment. This unpredictability could make financial planning difficult, especially for low-income families already on tight budgets. Regulatory Burden: The requirement for the Board of Education to promulgate new regulations and amend the Child Care and Development Fund Plan adds a regulatory burden. This process could be lengthy, delaying the implementation and potentially leaving families in a state of limbo regarding their benefits. Potential for Reduced Support: While the intent is to avoid a sudden loss of eligibility, the phased reduction might still result in families receiving less support at a time when they might still need significant assistance, particularly if the cost of living increases outpaces their income growth. Impact on Program Effectiveness: The focus on reducing benefits as income rises might shift the program's focus from providing stable support to managing a gradual exit strategy, potentially reducing the effectiveness of the program in supporting early childhood education and care continuity. Federal Compliance Issues: Amending the Child Care and Development Fund Plan to align with this new model might face scrutiny or rejection from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services if it's seen as not aligning with federal goals of promoting work and self-sufficiency without creating barriers to employment. Resource Allocation: The resources needed to develop, implement, and monitor this phased reduction model could be substantial, potentially diverting funds from direct service provision or from expanding the program to serve more families in need. I oppose this legislation due to concerns over increased administrative complexity, potential disincentives for income growth, financial uncertainty for families, regulatory burdens, the risk of reduced support when still needed, impact on program effectiveness, potential federal compliance issues, and inefficient resource allocation. A more straightforward, supportive approach that encourages economic advancement while providing stable child care assistance would be more beneficial.

Summary As Introduced Public education; early childhood care and education; funding formula calculations; Early Childhood Care and Education Fund established; report. Requires the Department of Education to (i) establish and maintain a funding formula for the provision of early childhood care and education services that establishes the minimum funding and number of slots per biennium for such providers based on a cost of quality rate per child, actual data from the prior year, unserved waitlists, and a multiplier based on enrollment and parent demand growth in prior biennia; (ii) make disbursements from the Early Childhood Care and Education Fund, established in the bill, to support the provision of early childhood care and education services in accordance with the funding formula set forth in the bill; and (iii) submit to the Commission on Early Childhood Care and Education a report on the status of the Fund, including the data used to calculate the minimum funding and number of slots per biennium established pursuant to the funding formula. The bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to submit to the General Assembly by November 1 of each year a report on Fund revenues, distributions, and balances.