Institute for Justice is that far-right wing policy group pretending to be left social progressive. As a friend comments below-------these are global corporations coming into our communities and taking over what was a public community center activity------then privatized to what were small businesses ----now MOVING FORWARD to global corporations. Of course they are going to pay nothing and have no requirements of those working in child care. We already see in US cities where child care outsourced as PAY-TO-PLAY have no oversight and accountability with parents having to look hard to find a center they feel they can trust.
This is simply further deregulation giving the impression it will save parents money and open employment to more citizens----when it will be yet another job that pays nothing offered by a global corporation not caring for the child or these child care workers.
As many of these child care centers are tied to PRE-K -career vocational training there is expected to be a level of teaching which is to what this comment addresses.
MOVING FORWARD ENDS THE SMALL BUSINESS CHILD CARE AND PUSHES EMPLOYEES TO GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES.
'The regulation requires a minimum of a CDA - not a bachelor's degree. A CDA requires a HS diploma, and 120 CLOCK hours of classwork - so roughly 2.5 college classes. Far cry from a bachelor's degree.... the requirement for lead teachers is an associate's degree, and only directors are required to have a bachelor's degree'.
'So we’re saying it’s a good thing to have untrained people caring for children now? Really'?
Institute for Justice
December 6, 2017 · Help save daycare in DC!
Stand With Me to Support DC Daycare Providers
D.C. wants to put qualified daycare workers out of jobs—driving up costs and making it harder for parents to find quality care. I just told D.C. to stop requiring daycare workers to get an expensive and unnecessary college degree. Tell…
Learn More
savedcdaycare.com
coming soon:
This is the same far-right wing global 1% group pretending to help our food truck industry with deregulation. Our street food vendors whether food truck or cart used to receive strong public health inspections to protect the public----these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has seen those public health inspections almost disappear and we talk to many people who will not eat at food trucks or vendors because they do not trust the safety of food.
The far-right wing is doing as it has these few decades----it privatizes all that is public pretending to create small business economies ----but as with ALL THESE PRIVATIZATIONS even the food truck/food vendor industry is now seeing licensing going to global corporate chains.
These deregulated food trucks and vendors------soon to be the UBER of our once REAL small street food vendor industry.
BELOW WE SEE FOR WHOM THIS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE WORKS------this is part of the global corporate campus socialism----where workers are tied to that campus for eating, housing, to be schooled, as a food source and of course in global corporate dormitories workers are required to VOLUNTEER after working 15 hours a day.
Baby boomers can remember child care centers tied to public community centers and knowing who was working at those centers......then they were privatized to corporate non-profits and sent out as small businesses-----of course the goal was ending public local community centers to hand off to global corporations. PRE - K to career testing at 3 years vocational tracking determined by global corporations.
'Realization Model
Each program provides children with appropriative development environment and education model designed by high-qualified teachers
Corporate Childcare & Nanny Service
Benefits of Corporate Employer-Sponsored Care
Recruitment and Retention
Turnover
Absenteeism/Employee Productivity
Employee Job Satisfaction and Performance
Remember that policy of WRAP-AROUND-SERVICES --- supposed social services tied to public schools ------sent not to each public K-12 but to private corporations during OBAMA administration sold as addressing the needs of our low-income communities. We shouted from the start that WRAP-AROUND services would not last ----they were simply a method of transferring Federal government funding that went to public schools and public community centers to private outsourced non-profits------now block granted to global corporations building that GLOBAL CORPORATE SOCIALISM.
Our community child care as we said was often people we knew in a community-----the funding helped create a business-----our local government DID PROVIDE OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY so parents felt safe in leaving children to go to work. BLOCK GRANTING is that PAY-TO-PLAY where our 5% players these few decades received Federal funds and we had all kinds of worries from parents about where to take their children.
Global corporate campuses are already providing child care -----what we are shouting is this----MOVING FORWARD will have parents working 15-18 hour shifts------global corporations are being staged to install pre-K education regardless of parental desires or input.
Office of Non-Public Education (ONPE)
Other Federal Agency Laws and Programs
Agency:U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Office of Child Care
Program:Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)
The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), also known as the Child Care and Development Block Grant, is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CCDF funds State efforts to provide child care services for low-income family members who work, train for work, attend school, or whose children receive or need to receive protective services. CCDF provides States, Indian tribes, and territories with funding to help low-income families access child care for their children through certificates, grants, or contracts. Certificates can be used for public or private, religious or non-religious, and center or home-based care. Child care programs that participate must comply with State health and safety requirements. A portion of funds is also used for activities to improve the quality of care, such as provider training. Private providers of preschool or school-age programs should contact the lead agency for child care in the State for more information.
What we are hearing today from the same far-right wing global 1% pols are how public agencies are a CONFUSED COLLECTION OF FUNDING STREAMS WITH NO UNIFORM GOALS-------KNOW WHAT? That was not how our last century's public agencies worked before CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA outsourcing -----another corruption of a fully functioning and REAL LEFT social progressive policy made to sound ineffective and needing to be handed to global corporations. It seems 99% WE THE PEOPLE just couldn't get child care right ----it wasn't the complete deregulation and outsourcing to networks with no oversight and accountability during 1990s Clinton era made worse in Bush era that made this mess.
THIS IS A LONG ARTICLE---WE POST ONLY A BRIEF PART----GOOGLE TO SEE HISTORY.
A Brief History of Federal
Financing for Child Care
in the United States
Abby J. Cohen
Abstract
Over the past 60 years, the federal government has provided funding for child care and early education programs in fits and starts. Funding has fluctuated in amount and purpose, with the result that today’s child care financing system is a confused collection of funding streams with no uniform goals, standards, or administrative structure.
This article traces the history of federal funding for child care and early education programs in the United States and examines how the values of American society have shaped the federal funding of child care and early education services.
Conclusion
The United States has yet to establish an
underlying principle or set of principles to
justify public support of child care. The
nation has yet to recognize the rich, multidimensional character of affordable, quality child care.
Each campaign for public sup-
port for child care has tended to focus on
one particular goal of child care, such as its
ability to enable work, promote school readi-
ness, protect children from abuse or neglect,
or compensate for disadvantage. Indeed,
some of the most comprehensive child care
programs supported by the federal govern-
ment were created with virtually no public
discussion about child care. The Lanham
Act was passed to support the war effort with-
out even mentioning child care, and Head
Start is seen as an educational program, not
as child care. One commentator noted that child care has been a “stepchild to welfare policy for the poor and tax policy for the middle class.”
Congress came closest to
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – SUMMER/FALL 1996
Figure 1
Women’s Labor Force Participation Rates
in the United States, 1890–1993
A Brief History of Federal Financing for Child Care in the United States
1. The brevity of this article precludes a thorough examination of the history of all forms of support for child care. Support has come from private sources and from all levels of gov-ernment. To explore nonfederal subsidies, see, for example, Smith, S.L., Fairchild, M., and Groginsky, S.
Early childhood care and education: An investment that works
. Denver, CO:
National Conference of State Legislatures, 1995.
Child care and equal opportunity for women
. Clearinghouse
Publication No. 67, June 1981.
acknowledging the rich nature of child care
as a comprehensive family-focused service
worthy of support in its own right in 1971,
only to have the bill vetoed by Richard
Nixon.
After that veto, it took 19 years (during which the percentage of mothers in the labor force increased dramatically) before
child care again became an issue the politicians felt they had to reckon with, but the resulting legislation continued the confusion over purposes and maintained the fragmented child care subsidy system. Child care
funding since 1988 has minimized the focus
on the quality of the care that children eligi-
ble for subsidies receive. Funding streams
are designed primarily to help low-income
mothers work. By contrast, the belief that
comprehensive, high-quality care yields ben-
efits for low-income children and society is a
primary rationale for public support of
Head Start, which serves many of the same
families eligible for AFDC or working poor-
related subsidies, but does so primarily in
part-day, part-year programs that are less suit-
able for working parents.
The current political landscape highlights the tenuous nature of public support for government-funded, particularly federally funded, child care, with major shifts occurring in the roles of federal, state, and local government. (See the article by Stoney and
Greenberg in this journal issue.) Although
some are heartened by the fact that the need
for child care subsidies is much more widely
appreciated today than it was 60 years ago,
others are deeply disheartened that the gap
between need and support seems to be
growing ever wider
_____________________________________
Today's CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA far-right wing global 1% are of course ending all FDR AND WAR ON POVERTY------having spent these few decades ROBBER BARON fleecing these programs making them completely dysfunctional.
Federal funding for child care helped working and middle-class parents as this program was designed to do. It was easy----accessible, parents knew those working the centers-----THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH FEDERALLY FUNDED CHILD CARE. We are told it is PUBLIC SUPPORT that is waning over these social programs-------that is not what we hear.
'The current political landscape highlights the tenuous nature of public support for government-funded, particularly federally funded, child care, with major shifts occurring in the roles of federal, state, and local government'.
So, the funding is not disappearing ----it is being enfolded into RACE TO THE TOP AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT Federal funding for public schools----and what was once our Federal Medicaid and HEAD START. The only change will be-----all those funds are now going to the global corporation-----to create whatever platform they want for only their employees. If you are not employed by a global corporation---which soon will be SMART CITIES NO JOBS-----you will be out of the workforce. Now, global 1% of men say-----women are not needed as MOVING FORWARD SMART CITIES kills employment in all categories so we are heading back to women tied to home------husbands unable to find employment-------this is MOVING FORWARD THIRD WORLD.
Our right wing voters particularly wanting control of rearing their children-----please stop supporting RIGHT WING ECONOMICS----now global corporate neo-liberalism. Our low-income black citizens depending on having those small business child care centers------we knew in 1990s this never had a goal of free market small business entrepreneurship ----THAT IS A FAKE FAR-RIGHT WING POLICY STANCE.
'One child care provider explained very succinctly the challenges they face, saying "If we don't have children then we don't make money and that is the only way we can pay our bills. We love children and we work hard, starting at 6:30 in the morning. We don't work at this job to get rich but we need to pay our bills. We need help. We can't get a loan. The bank doesn't want to see us because we don't make enough money." She continued by saying that "There is not a lack of children that need to be served. There is a lack of money to pay us to look after the children. Parents don't have enough money. Now that the child care subsidies have been cut, they don't have any money to pay us to look after their children."'
Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
May 26, 2017
Few Americans support cuts to most government programs, including Medicaid
By John Gramlich
President Donald Trump’s first budget request to Congress would make deep cuts to government programs, including Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income adults and children. Recent polls have found little public support for cuts to Medicaid, but that may not be a surprise: Americans tend not to favor budget cuts when asked about specific areas being affected.
In April, only 12% of U.S. adults said they wanted to see the president and Congress decrease spending for Medicaid, according to a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Four-in-ten said they preferred to increase Medicaid spending, while 47% said they wanted funding levels to be kept about the same.
A March survey by the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research produced similar results. About two-in-ten adults (21%) said they favored reducing federal funding for the program, including 10% who held that view strongly. By comparison, 64% said they opposed reducing funding, including 45% who strongly opposed it. (Another 14% said they neither favored nor opposed cutting Medicaid spending.)
Public reluctance to cut federal funding is not limited to Medicaid. In an April Pew Research Center survey, majorities in both political parties said they favored maintaining or increasing spending in nearly all of the 14 specific budget areas that respondents were asked about. The sole area in which a majority of either party favored decreasing spending was “economic assistance to needy people around the world.” Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 56% said they would reduce such funding. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, the share who said this was 13%.
In Pew Research Center surveys dating to 2009, the only other budget area for which reduced federal funding has drawn the support of at least half of either party is “government assistance for the unemployed.” In 2013, 53% of Republicans and Republican leaners said they would decrease spending for such assistance, compared with 16% among Democrats and Democratic leaners. (By April 2017, the share who would cut funding for this kind of assistance had fallen to 44% among Republicans and 10% among Democrats.)
This year’s survey found bipartisan support for maintaining or increasing spending for several entitlement programs. On Medicare – the health insurance program for the elderly or those with certain disabilities, which would not lose funding under the Trump budget – 85% of Republicans said they would maintain or increase spending, as did 94% of Democrats. On Social Security, which is also untouched in the budget proposal, 86% of Republicans and 95% of Democrats said they would maintain or increase spending.
The survey did not ask about Medicaid. But it found that 61% of Republicans and 95% of Democrats would maintain or increase funding for health care in general. It also found that 61% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats would maintain or increase spending for “economic assistance to needy people in the U.S.”
While majorities in both parties say they want to maintain or increase funding in nearly all budget areas, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say they would decrease spending in most of the areas the survey asked about. For example, Republicans were 32 percentage points more likely than Democrats to favor cuts to environmental protection and 31 points more likely to favor reducing funding for health care and for “assistance to the needy in the U.S.”
But Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say they would decrease spending in other areas. About a quarter of Democrats (27%) said they would cut spending for military defense, compared with 8% of Republicans. Democrats were also about twice as likely as Republicans (15% to 7%) to say they would decrease spending for “anti-terrorism defenses in the U.S.”
There was no difference between the parties when it comes to infrastructure: Just 7% of Republicans and Democrats alike said they would favor less funding for “rebuilding highways, bridges and roads.”
Although the April survey did not ask about views of federal spending overall, Americans are split in their preferences on the size and scope of government: 48% said they would rather have a bigger government providing more services, while 45% preferred a smaller government providing fewer services.
____________________________________________
We are sure JUDY HOYER did fine work in this field as MOVING FORWARD CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA started moving all Federal funding to global corporations-----her husband of course STENY HOYER is that far-right wing global 1% extreme wealth extreme poverty Clinton neo-liberal----not a DEMOCRAT and certainly should never been allowed to be a candidate for HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES----that is the 99% WE THE PEOPLE CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE.
RAGING OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% having been in Congress since REAGAN ERA-----there is no getting rid of pols for life if they are global 1% neo-liberals!
Early life and education
Hoyer was born in New York City, New York, and grew up in Mitchellville, Maryland, the son of Jean (née Baldwin) and Steen Theilgaard Høyer. His father was Danish and a native of Copenhagen; "Steny" is a variant of his father's name, "Steen",[3] and Hoyer is an anglicized form of the fairly common Danish surname "Høyer". His mother was an American, with Scottish, German, and English ancestry, and a descendant of John Hart, a signer of the Declaration of Independence.[4] He graduated from Suitland High School in Suitland, Maryland.
In 1963, he graduated magna cum laude from the University of Maryland, College Park, where he also became a member of the Sigma Chi Fraternity.[5] He earned his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., in 1966
John Hart (born between 1706 and 1713 – May 11, 1779) was a public official and politician in colonial New Jersey who served as a delegate to the Continental Congress and also signed the Declaration of Independence.
This is how our US Democratic Party was captured by global 1%------these folks should not be running as Democrats----the goals of HOYER is not LEFT -----NOT CENTER LEFT-----so these structures tied to child care-----to wrap-around services connected to all our K-12 public schools are slowly taking all public school districts and will become that corporate campus corporation attaining all funding ---FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL----having that control of children working on those global corporate campuses. This was the goal in 1990s CLINTON ERA of privatization public health, public services, public schools.
This is the structure MOVING FORWARD as global corporate campus socialism------receiving all Federal, state, local funding for what is called WRAP-AROUND-SERVICES which of course all our Baltimore pols and 5% players KNEW as they promoted these policies over several years.
Charles County Public Schools Judy Center
"What the best and wisest parent wants for their own child, that must the community want for all its children." John Dewey
Search for:
The Charles County Judy Center
The Charles County Judy Center serves students and families in the C. Paul Barnhart, Dr. Samuel Mudd and Eva Turner Elementary Schools attendance zones. The Judy Center provides services for children ages 0 through kindergarten and their families. We work together with community partners to ensure that children are socially, emotionally and physically ready for first grade. Most services, programs and activities are free.
Beginning Fall 2015, we would like to welcome J.P. Ryon Elementary School to the Judy Center! Due to being awarded a federal Pre-Kindergarten (Judy Center) expansion grant, we are now able to support families and their children ages 0 through Pre-K at J.P. Ryon.
Please contact us if you would like to learn more about the Charles County Public Schools Judy Center.
History of the Judith Hoyer Childcare and Education Program
The Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Enhancement Programs were established in July 2000, through Senate Bill 793. As a result of this legislation, the Maryland General Assembly allocated $7 million to establish the Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Enhancement Centers (hereafter, the Judy Centers). The Judy Centers provide Enhancement Grants for private providers, and track progress in school readiness using the Maryland Model for School Readiness (MMSR). The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) was charged with administering these programs.
Judy Centers were designed to provide a comprehensive set of services for at-risk children birth through age five and their families. Judy Centers are located in or affiliated with elementary schools and provide full-day, full-year services. Services were designed to foster a child’s readiness for school. Twenty-three counties across Maryland were awarded grants to establish Judy Centers.
If one Google's American education philosophy and look at articles tied to early American leaders and their goals in building American public education you will find a completely different history then what existed before REAGAN/CLINTON in MOVING FORWARD. As someone with higher degrees in Education------the dynamic in public education from a JOHN LOCKE----towards a JOHN DEWEY came with transition from an FDR being left social progressive as was our public education still feeling the influence of JOHN LOCKE the AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT-----educating 99% of people to be CITIZENS.
Locke was not someone to aspire in modern days as he was a thinker from several centuries ago-----but our US public education was styled on LOCKE'S theories of freedom, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Below we see Locke's philosophies are exactly what our founding fathers embraced-----today we see JOHN DEWEY------global 1% neo-liberals slid DEWEY into place on the tails of FDR LEFT SOCIAL PROGESSIVISM------and DEWEY was far-right wing neo-liberal from of course Chicago's raging neo-liberal University of Chicago. Baby boomers were lead to believe our public school philosophies were still JOHN LOCKE'S ----I AM MAN------WITH RIGHTS AND FREEDOM-----while Clinton era brought JOHN DEWEY and global 1% pragmatism -----educating for what global corporations need.
BOTH ARE CALLED PROGRESSIVE -----LOCKE WAS SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE IN RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND EDUCATING FOR CITIZENSHIP-----AND DEWEY WAS MOVING FORWARD PRE-K TO CAREER VOCATIONAL TRAINING ONLY.
THE JUDY CENTER takes 99% WE THE PEOPLE to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%--------JOHN LOCKE public schools for several centuries took 99% WE THE PEOPLE to being citizens with rights.
John Locke
A philosopher during the Enlightenment period who held a more positive view about humans. He thought that humans were able to improve themselves by learning from experience. He criticized the absolute monarchy and favored self-government because he thought humans were able to govern their own affairs and look after the welfare of society. He also thought the government's job was to protect the rights of its citizens and that its power came from the consent of the people.
Locke was tied to building civil society with morals and ethics-------DEWEY is tied to pragmatism to what corporations need to profit.
John Dewey on Progressive Education
John Dewey (1859–1952) was one of the United States’ best known academics, philosophers and public intellectuals. From humble beginnings in Vermont, he managed to achieve a PhD in philosophy and become a professor at the University of Chicago.
In its course of development on a world scale the democratic movement forced consideration of the needs and claims of one section of the oppressed after another. Out of the general cause of “rights of the people” there sprouted specific demands voicing the grievances of peasants, wage workers, the religiously persecuted, slaves, women, paupers, the aged, the disabled, prisoners, the insane, the racially oppressed.The movement to reform child education must be viewed in this historical context. Children as such are not usually included among the oppressed. Yet they necessarily compose one of the weakest, most dependent and defenseless sections of the population. Each generation of children is not only helped but hindered and hurt by the elders who exercise direct control over them.
**************************************
John Locke on Education and Play
John Locke (1632-1704) is perhaps best known for his political theories and his influence on early-American political thinking. The notions of natural rights, social contracts, and governmental checks and balances, which he put forth in his Two Treatises of Government (1690), appear throughout the major documents of the American revolutionary period, including the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. But Locke also held strong beliefs regarding education, and his letters to a friend on the subject eventually evolved into Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693), a manual for the education of young gentry boys which emphasized morality and practicality in all aspects of instruction.
Part of Locke's philosophy involved play as a necessary and important part of the educational process. The following excerpts illustrate this concept:
"§69 . . . They must not be hinder’d from being children, or from playing, or doing as children, but from doing ill; all other liberty is to be allow’d them. Next, to make them in love with the company of their parents, they should receive all their good things there, and from their hands. The servants should be hinder’d from making court to them by giving them strong drink, wine, fruit, playthings, and other such matters, which may make them in love with their conversation."
"§73 None of the things they are to learn, should ever be made a burthen to them, or impos’d on them as a task. Whatever is so propos’d, presently becomes irksome; the mind takes an aversion to it, though before it were a thing of delight or indifferency. Let a child but be order’d to whip his top at a certain time every day, whether he has or has not a mind to it; let this be but requir’d of him as a duty, wherein he must spend so many hours morning and afternoon, and see whether he will not soon be weary of any play at this rate. Is it not so with grown men?"
"§130 Play-things, I think, children should have, and of divers sorts; but still to be in the custody of their tutors or some body else, whereof the child should have in his power but one at once, and should not be suffered to have another but when he restored that. This teaches them betimes to be careful of not losing or spoiling the things they have; whereas plenty and variety in their own keeping, makes them wanton and careless, and teaches them from the beginning to be squanderers and wasters. These, I confess, are little things, and such as will seem beneath the care of a governor; but nothing that may form children’s minds is to be overlooked and neglected, and whatsoever introduces habits, and settles customs in them, deserves the care and attention of their governors, and is not a small thing in its consequences."
"§149 . . . Children should not have any thing like work, or serious, laid on them; neither their minds, nor bodies will bear it. It injures their healths; and their being forced and tied down to their books in an age at enmity with all such restraint, has, I doubt not, been the reason, why a great many have hated books and learning all their lives after. ’Tis like a surfeit, that leaves an aversion behind not to be removed."
Source: John Locke. Some Thoughts Concerning Education. Vol. XXXVII, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909-1914.
__________________________________________
There is no way better in making child care cheaper than to have global corporate campus employees do it for free as part of their jobs. Who is getting more of those child care dollars? Higher income citizens who will see that funding going to these corporate campus child care enrichment schools.
Clinton era 1990s is when DEWEY neo-liberal education philosophy soared flipping from an FDR selling LOCKE left social progressivism in educating students to be ready to be leaders and citizens. CLINTON/OBAMA neo-liberals worked hard to PRETEND we were still LOCKE SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES in public education while MOVING FORWARD DEWEY PRAGMATIC WHATEVER BRINGS CORPORATE PROFIT/POWER. In other words returning to DARK AGES. If we looked at the ridiculous talk from both HILLARY AND TRUMP during 2016 election it was filled with the WOMEN'S WORKPLACE issues tied to child care and maturity.
Your Money, Your America
Trump's child care plan is gift to the rich, report says
by Heather Long @byHeatherLong February 28, 2017: 7:06 PM ET
Trump's childhood home is up for auction (again)
President Donald Trump has vowed to make child care in America cheaper.
But Trump's current proposal, which he touted during his prime-time address to Congress Tuesday evening, will do little to help the working families who need the most relief. That's according to a new analysis from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.
Making child care more affordable is one of Trump's signature promises to voters. It's listed in his contract with the American voter. His daughter Ivanka Trump played a large role in crafting the plan, which includes three new tax benefits and paid family leave for new parents.
Just about everyone agrees that child care costs in America are astronomical. It now costs more to put a kid in child care than college (if you get in-state tuition).
"My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make child care accessible and affordable," he said Tuesday. He went on to call on Congress "to help ensure new parents have paid family leave."
But an analysis by the Tax Policy Center finds that Trump's proposal is a gift to the rich. The tax experts at TPC say 70% of the benefits will go to families that make $100,000 or more. And 25% will go to people earning $200,000 or more.
"Trump has identified a real challenge affecting working families, but his proposal would do little or nothing to help them," Elaine Maag, an expert at the Tax Policy Center, told CNNMoney. A typical middle class family earns about $56,000.
Related: Even Trump voters want the minimum wage raised
Trump's child care plan (so far)
The heart of Trump's plan is to significantly expand the tax deduction that families can take for child care expenses for kids under 13. Anyone making less than $250,000 ($500,000 if married) could deduct the average cost of child care in their state. (The average would be based on the age of their child, since it usually costs more to care for infants and toddlers).
That sounds great, but families have to pay income taxes to Uncle Sam in order to take advantage of the deduction. Many working class families pay nothing in federal income taxes because they earn too little in income to owe anything.
On top of that, Trump wants to create a "dependent care savings account" (DCSA) to allow families to save up to $2,000 tax-free that could be used to pay for care for kids or elderly parents. Parents could even use the money to pay for summer camp.
Again, it sounds good, but poor families that desperately need a break on child care are unlikely to have extra money to put into the savings account.
"Child care is a major crisis in America, but the Trump plan is badly designed," says Ajay Chaudry, who served in the Obama administration and is the author of "Cradle to Kindergarten: A New Plan to Combat Inequality."
But others, like women's rights champion Anne-Marie Slaughter, say any progress on affordable child care should be applauded.
"If Ivanka Trump could actually get something like this through, it would be real and important progress," Slaughter tweeted.
Related: America's favorite retailer is...
How Trump wants to help the poor
The final part of Trump's plan is aimed at helping poorer families. It's a refundable tax credit so working parents who don't end up owing federal income tax could actually get money back from the government. The maximum amount a low-income family could receive is $1,200 under Trump's tax proposal, but most working class families would get far less than that.
The Tax Policy Center says a couple earning $30,000 a year would get $574 back. It's a modest amount compared to the average child care bill. Stay-at-home moms or dads would not be eligible for the tax credit, but wealthier stay-at-home parents can take advantage of the deduction.
Putting a four-year-old in full-time care ranges from $4,439 a year in Mississippi to a whopping $17,863 a year in Washington D.C., according to Child Care Aware.
Trump introduces paternity leave
On the campaign trail, Trump also floated the idea of providing new moms with up to six weeks of partially paid maternity leave. Now he is taking that a step further by calling for leave for "new parents," which sounds like it would include mothers and fathers.
Trump's original plan called for maternity leave to come from state unemployment insurance programs. But there was a lot of concern about that since not all workers are covered by those programs.
Trump's daughter Ivanka has been working with Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee on refining the plan.
"One of the things that is most troubling as a mom in the workforce is finding child care and being certain that your children are safe and well cared for," Rep. Blackburn told CNN in early January.
There are also concerns about how Trump will pay for this child care policy. The Tax Policy Center estimates just the tax deductions and credits will cost $115 billion over the next decade. The Tax Foundation estimates it would cost $500 billion over the next decade.
"This would be a big help financially for families," says Rachel Greszler, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that hasn't taken a stance on Trump's child care proposal. "But it comes at a big cost."
The price tag may cause Congress to reject the proposal. Congresswoman Blackburn's office and the White House did not respond to CNNMoney's request for comment.
This is simply further deregulation giving the impression it will save parents money and open employment to more citizens----when it will be yet another job that pays nothing offered by a global corporation not caring for the child or these child care workers.
As many of these child care centers are tied to PRE-K -career vocational training there is expected to be a level of teaching which is to what this comment addresses.
MOVING FORWARD ENDS THE SMALL BUSINESS CHILD CARE AND PUSHES EMPLOYEES TO GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES.
'The regulation requires a minimum of a CDA - not a bachelor's degree. A CDA requires a HS diploma, and 120 CLOCK hours of classwork - so roughly 2.5 college classes. Far cry from a bachelor's degree.... the requirement for lead teachers is an associate's degree, and only directors are required to have a bachelor's degree'.
'So we’re saying it’s a good thing to have untrained people caring for children now? Really'?
Institute for Justice
December 6, 2017 · Help save daycare in DC!
Stand With Me to Support DC Daycare Providers
D.C. wants to put qualified daycare workers out of jobs—driving up costs and making it harder for parents to find quality care. I just told D.C. to stop requiring daycare workers to get an expensive and unnecessary college degree. Tell…
Learn More
savedcdaycare.com
coming soon:
- Nanny Poppinz Fairfield County Connecticut
- Nanny Poppinz of Cleveland
- Nanny Poppinz of Minneapolis/St
- Paul
This is the same far-right wing global 1% group pretending to help our food truck industry with deregulation. Our street food vendors whether food truck or cart used to receive strong public health inspections to protect the public----these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has seen those public health inspections almost disappear and we talk to many people who will not eat at food trucks or vendors because they do not trust the safety of food.
The far-right wing is doing as it has these few decades----it privatizes all that is public pretending to create small business economies ----but as with ALL THESE PRIVATIZATIONS even the food truck/food vendor industry is now seeing licensing going to global corporate chains.
These deregulated food trucks and vendors------soon to be the UBER of our once REAL small street food vendor industry.
BELOW WE SEE FOR WHOM THIS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE WORKS------this is part of the global corporate campus socialism----where workers are tied to that campus for eating, housing, to be schooled, as a food source and of course in global corporate dormitories workers are required to VOLUNTEER after working 15 hours a day.
Baby boomers can remember child care centers tied to public community centers and knowing who was working at those centers......then they were privatized to corporate non-profits and sent out as small businesses-----of course the goal was ending public local community centers to hand off to global corporations. PRE - K to career testing at 3 years vocational tracking determined by global corporations.
'Realization Model
Each program provides children with appropriative development environment and education model designed by high-qualified teachers
- Nido environment from 0 up to 1 year old
- Corporate child center for children 0–3 years old
- Corporate kindergarten/center for children 3–6 years old
- Back-up care for children 0–3 и 3–6 years old
- Corporate children camp for children of different ages (from 3 up to 14) for holidays'
Corporate Childcare & Nanny Service
Benefits of Corporate Employer-Sponsored Care
- Organizations are saving millions of dollars sponsoring childcare centers. One of the main findings of the study was that voluntary turnover of center users was nearly one-half that of the voluntary turnover among the total workforces of participating organizations.
- Employer-sponsored child care programs generate a powerful return on investment. By driving down turnover, reducing absenteeism, and increasing productivity on the job, child care and work/life programs are not only an investment in employees, but an investment in the success of your company. In fact, after the first year of employment, most employee turnover occurs among the parents of young children. By providing programs that allow those parents to work - and perform to their full capacity - leading employers reduce the recurring costs of recruiting and retaining skilled employees.
- The numbers speak for themselves: Unscheduled absences, for example, cost employers between $650 and $1,000 per employee per year (National Institute of Business Management, 1999). A four-year review of JPMorgan chase's back-up care program showed that 98% of parents who use the program would have taken unscheduled time off from work to care for their children had the back-up program not been available. In just one year, the back-up program generated more than a 100% return on investment.
- Nanny Poppinz currently provides Nanny stadium child care for the Washington Nationals, Florida Marlins and the Florida Panthers as well as emergency child care for a number of South Florida companies during hurricane season.
Recruitment and Retention
- In a study of employees with children in employer-sponsored child care programs, 93% of respondents said that work-site child care was an important factor in considering a job change. 19% had actually turned down another job, rather than lose their work-site child care, and 26% of those who turned down other job opportunities were managers. (Benefits of Work-Site child Care, simmons College, 1997)
- 42% of parents report that child care was an important factor in their decision to join the organization for which they work. (Benefits of Work-Site Child Care, Simmons College, 1997)
- A high percentage of employees expecting a child plan to return to work following the child's arrival (83%). However, 86% of employees who do not plan to return to work after the birth or adoption of a child would return if work-site child care were available. (Child Care Trends, 2002)
Turnover
- Among parent employees, 31% report they have considered leaving their employers due to child care issues. 85% percent of these employees report that a work-site center would affect their decision to stay, with more than 50% reporting it would have a significant impact. (Child Care Trends, 2002)
- The full cost of turnover is 1.5 times the annual salary of a salaried/exempt employee who leaves, and .75 times the annual salary of an hourly/non-exempt employee who leaves. (Personnel Journal, December 1990) Reducing turnover has a direct impact on an organization's bottom line.
Absenteeism/Employee Productivity
- Among parents, 45% miss at least one day of work every six months due to a child care breakdown. These parents average 4.3 days missed in a six-month timeframe. (Child Care Trends, 2002)
- Among parents, 65% are late to work or leaving work early due to child care issues. This occurs an average of 7.5 times in a six-month timeframe. (Child Care Trends, 2002)
Employee Job Satisfaction and Performance
- 91% of all respondents, including employees without children, feel work-site child care will have a positive impact on the organization for which they work. (Child Care Trends, 2002)
- Employees who use, or are aware of, work/life programs are the most committed employees in the company and are the least likely to feel overwhelmed or burnt out. At one company, these employees were 45% more likely to strongly agree that they would "go the extra mile" to help their company succeed. This directly contradicts the traditional assumption that employees with family responsibilities are unwilling or unable to extend themselves for their employers. (DuPont Work/Life Study, 1995)
Remember that policy of WRAP-AROUND-SERVICES --- supposed social services tied to public schools ------sent not to each public K-12 but to private corporations during OBAMA administration sold as addressing the needs of our low-income communities. We shouted from the start that WRAP-AROUND services would not last ----they were simply a method of transferring Federal government funding that went to public schools and public community centers to private outsourced non-profits------now block granted to global corporations building that GLOBAL CORPORATE SOCIALISM.
Our community child care as we said was often people we knew in a community-----the funding helped create a business-----our local government DID PROVIDE OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY so parents felt safe in leaving children to go to work. BLOCK GRANTING is that PAY-TO-PLAY where our 5% players these few decades received Federal funds and we had all kinds of worries from parents about where to take their children.
Global corporate campuses are already providing child care -----what we are shouting is this----MOVING FORWARD will have parents working 15-18 hour shifts------global corporations are being staged to install pre-K education regardless of parental desires or input.
Office of Non-Public Education (ONPE)
Other Federal Agency Laws and Programs
Agency:U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Office of Child Care
Program:Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)
The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), also known as the Child Care and Development Block Grant, is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CCDF funds State efforts to provide child care services for low-income family members who work, train for work, attend school, or whose children receive or need to receive protective services. CCDF provides States, Indian tribes, and territories with funding to help low-income families access child care for their children through certificates, grants, or contracts. Certificates can be used for public or private, religious or non-religious, and center or home-based care. Child care programs that participate must comply with State health and safety requirements. A portion of funds is also used for activities to improve the quality of care, such as provider training. Private providers of preschool or school-age programs should contact the lead agency for child care in the State for more information.
What we are hearing today from the same far-right wing global 1% pols are how public agencies are a CONFUSED COLLECTION OF FUNDING STREAMS WITH NO UNIFORM GOALS-------KNOW WHAT? That was not how our last century's public agencies worked before CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA outsourcing -----another corruption of a fully functioning and REAL LEFT social progressive policy made to sound ineffective and needing to be handed to global corporations. It seems 99% WE THE PEOPLE just couldn't get child care right ----it wasn't the complete deregulation and outsourcing to networks with no oversight and accountability during 1990s Clinton era made worse in Bush era that made this mess.
THIS IS A LONG ARTICLE---WE POST ONLY A BRIEF PART----GOOGLE TO SEE HISTORY.
A Brief History of Federal
Financing for Child Care
in the United States
Abby J. Cohen
Abstract
Over the past 60 years, the federal government has provided funding for child care and early education programs in fits and starts. Funding has fluctuated in amount and purpose, with the result that today’s child care financing system is a confused collection of funding streams with no uniform goals, standards, or administrative structure.
This article traces the history of federal funding for child care and early education programs in the United States and examines how the values of American society have shaped the federal funding of child care and early education services.
Conclusion
The United States has yet to establish an
underlying principle or set of principles to
justify public support of child care. The
nation has yet to recognize the rich, multidimensional character of affordable, quality child care.
Each campaign for public sup-
port for child care has tended to focus on
one particular goal of child care, such as its
ability to enable work, promote school readi-
ness, protect children from abuse or neglect,
or compensate for disadvantage. Indeed,
some of the most comprehensive child care
programs supported by the federal govern-
ment were created with virtually no public
discussion about child care. The Lanham
Act was passed to support the war effort with-
out even mentioning child care, and Head
Start is seen as an educational program, not
as child care. One commentator noted that child care has been a “stepchild to welfare policy for the poor and tax policy for the middle class.”
Congress came closest to
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – SUMMER/FALL 1996
Figure 1
Women’s Labor Force Participation Rates
in the United States, 1890–1993
A Brief History of Federal Financing for Child Care in the United States
1. The brevity of this article precludes a thorough examination of the history of all forms of support for child care. Support has come from private sources and from all levels of gov-ernment. To explore nonfederal subsidies, see, for example, Smith, S.L., Fairchild, M., and Groginsky, S.
Early childhood care and education: An investment that works
. Denver, CO:
National Conference of State Legislatures, 1995.
Child care and equal opportunity for women
. Clearinghouse
Publication No. 67, June 1981.
acknowledging the rich nature of child care
as a comprehensive family-focused service
worthy of support in its own right in 1971,
only to have the bill vetoed by Richard
Nixon.
After that veto, it took 19 years (during which the percentage of mothers in the labor force increased dramatically) before
child care again became an issue the politicians felt they had to reckon with, but the resulting legislation continued the confusion over purposes and maintained the fragmented child care subsidy system. Child care
funding since 1988 has minimized the focus
on the quality of the care that children eligi-
ble for subsidies receive. Funding streams
are designed primarily to help low-income
mothers work. By contrast, the belief that
comprehensive, high-quality care yields ben-
efits for low-income children and society is a
primary rationale for public support of
Head Start, which serves many of the same
families eligible for AFDC or working poor-
related subsidies, but does so primarily in
part-day, part-year programs that are less suit-
able for working parents.
The current political landscape highlights the tenuous nature of public support for government-funded, particularly federally funded, child care, with major shifts occurring in the roles of federal, state, and local government. (See the article by Stoney and
Greenberg in this journal issue.) Although
some are heartened by the fact that the need
for child care subsidies is much more widely
appreciated today than it was 60 years ago,
others are deeply disheartened that the gap
between need and support seems to be
growing ever wider
_____________________________________
Today's CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA far-right wing global 1% are of course ending all FDR AND WAR ON POVERTY------having spent these few decades ROBBER BARON fleecing these programs making them completely dysfunctional.
Federal funding for child care helped working and middle-class parents as this program was designed to do. It was easy----accessible, parents knew those working the centers-----THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH FEDERALLY FUNDED CHILD CARE. We are told it is PUBLIC SUPPORT that is waning over these social programs-------that is not what we hear.
'The current political landscape highlights the tenuous nature of public support for government-funded, particularly federally funded, child care, with major shifts occurring in the roles of federal, state, and local government'.
So, the funding is not disappearing ----it is being enfolded into RACE TO THE TOP AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT Federal funding for public schools----and what was once our Federal Medicaid and HEAD START. The only change will be-----all those funds are now going to the global corporation-----to create whatever platform they want for only their employees. If you are not employed by a global corporation---which soon will be SMART CITIES NO JOBS-----you will be out of the workforce. Now, global 1% of men say-----women are not needed as MOVING FORWARD SMART CITIES kills employment in all categories so we are heading back to women tied to home------husbands unable to find employment-------this is MOVING FORWARD THIRD WORLD.
Our right wing voters particularly wanting control of rearing their children-----please stop supporting RIGHT WING ECONOMICS----now global corporate neo-liberalism. Our low-income black citizens depending on having those small business child care centers------we knew in 1990s this never had a goal of free market small business entrepreneurship ----THAT IS A FAKE FAR-RIGHT WING POLICY STANCE.
'One child care provider explained very succinctly the challenges they face, saying "If we don't have children then we don't make money and that is the only way we can pay our bills. We love children and we work hard, starting at 6:30 in the morning. We don't work at this job to get rich but we need to pay our bills. We need help. We can't get a loan. The bank doesn't want to see us because we don't make enough money." She continued by saying that "There is not a lack of children that need to be served. There is a lack of money to pay us to look after the children. Parents don't have enough money. Now that the child care subsidies have been cut, they don't have any money to pay us to look after their children."'
Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
May 26, 2017
Few Americans support cuts to most government programs, including Medicaid
By John Gramlich
President Donald Trump’s first budget request to Congress would make deep cuts to government programs, including Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income adults and children. Recent polls have found little public support for cuts to Medicaid, but that may not be a surprise: Americans tend not to favor budget cuts when asked about specific areas being affected.
In April, only 12% of U.S. adults said they wanted to see the president and Congress decrease spending for Medicaid, according to a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Four-in-ten said they preferred to increase Medicaid spending, while 47% said they wanted funding levels to be kept about the same.
A March survey by the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research produced similar results. About two-in-ten adults (21%) said they favored reducing federal funding for the program, including 10% who held that view strongly. By comparison, 64% said they opposed reducing funding, including 45% who strongly opposed it. (Another 14% said they neither favored nor opposed cutting Medicaid spending.)
Public reluctance to cut federal funding is not limited to Medicaid. In an April Pew Research Center survey, majorities in both political parties said they favored maintaining or increasing spending in nearly all of the 14 specific budget areas that respondents were asked about. The sole area in which a majority of either party favored decreasing spending was “economic assistance to needy people around the world.” Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 56% said they would reduce such funding. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, the share who said this was 13%.
In Pew Research Center surveys dating to 2009, the only other budget area for which reduced federal funding has drawn the support of at least half of either party is “government assistance for the unemployed.” In 2013, 53% of Republicans and Republican leaners said they would decrease spending for such assistance, compared with 16% among Democrats and Democratic leaners. (By April 2017, the share who would cut funding for this kind of assistance had fallen to 44% among Republicans and 10% among Democrats.)
This year’s survey found bipartisan support for maintaining or increasing spending for several entitlement programs. On Medicare – the health insurance program for the elderly or those with certain disabilities, which would not lose funding under the Trump budget – 85% of Republicans said they would maintain or increase spending, as did 94% of Democrats. On Social Security, which is also untouched in the budget proposal, 86% of Republicans and 95% of Democrats said they would maintain or increase spending.
The survey did not ask about Medicaid. But it found that 61% of Republicans and 95% of Democrats would maintain or increase funding for health care in general. It also found that 61% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats would maintain or increase spending for “economic assistance to needy people in the U.S.”
While majorities in both parties say they want to maintain or increase funding in nearly all budget areas, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say they would decrease spending in most of the areas the survey asked about. For example, Republicans were 32 percentage points more likely than Democrats to favor cuts to environmental protection and 31 points more likely to favor reducing funding for health care and for “assistance to the needy in the U.S.”
But Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say they would decrease spending in other areas. About a quarter of Democrats (27%) said they would cut spending for military defense, compared with 8% of Republicans. Democrats were also about twice as likely as Republicans (15% to 7%) to say they would decrease spending for “anti-terrorism defenses in the U.S.”
There was no difference between the parties when it comes to infrastructure: Just 7% of Republicans and Democrats alike said they would favor less funding for “rebuilding highways, bridges and roads.”
Although the April survey did not ask about views of federal spending overall, Americans are split in their preferences on the size and scope of government: 48% said they would rather have a bigger government providing more services, while 45% preferred a smaller government providing fewer services.
____________________________________________
We are sure JUDY HOYER did fine work in this field as MOVING FORWARD CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA started moving all Federal funding to global corporations-----her husband of course STENY HOYER is that far-right wing global 1% extreme wealth extreme poverty Clinton neo-liberal----not a DEMOCRAT and certainly should never been allowed to be a candidate for HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES----that is the 99% WE THE PEOPLE CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE.
RAGING OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% having been in Congress since REAGAN ERA-----there is no getting rid of pols for life if they are global 1% neo-liberals!
Early life and education
Hoyer was born in New York City, New York, and grew up in Mitchellville, Maryland, the son of Jean (née Baldwin) and Steen Theilgaard Høyer. His father was Danish and a native of Copenhagen; "Steny" is a variant of his father's name, "Steen",[3] and Hoyer is an anglicized form of the fairly common Danish surname "Høyer". His mother was an American, with Scottish, German, and English ancestry, and a descendant of John Hart, a signer of the Declaration of Independence.[4] He graduated from Suitland High School in Suitland, Maryland.
In 1963, he graduated magna cum laude from the University of Maryland, College Park, where he also became a member of the Sigma Chi Fraternity.[5] He earned his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., in 1966
John Hart (born between 1706 and 1713 – May 11, 1779) was a public official and politician in colonial New Jersey who served as a delegate to the Continental Congress and also signed the Declaration of Independence.
This is how our US Democratic Party was captured by global 1%------these folks should not be running as Democrats----the goals of HOYER is not LEFT -----NOT CENTER LEFT-----so these structures tied to child care-----to wrap-around services connected to all our K-12 public schools are slowly taking all public school districts and will become that corporate campus corporation attaining all funding ---FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL----having that control of children working on those global corporate campuses. This was the goal in 1990s CLINTON ERA of privatization public health, public services, public schools.
This is the structure MOVING FORWARD as global corporate campus socialism------receiving all Federal, state, local funding for what is called WRAP-AROUND-SERVICES which of course all our Baltimore pols and 5% players KNEW as they promoted these policies over several years.
Charles County Public Schools Judy Center
"What the best and wisest parent wants for their own child, that must the community want for all its children." John Dewey
Search for:
The Charles County Judy Center
The Charles County Judy Center serves students and families in the C. Paul Barnhart, Dr. Samuel Mudd and Eva Turner Elementary Schools attendance zones. The Judy Center provides services for children ages 0 through kindergarten and their families. We work together with community partners to ensure that children are socially, emotionally and physically ready for first grade. Most services, programs and activities are free.
Beginning Fall 2015, we would like to welcome J.P. Ryon Elementary School to the Judy Center! Due to being awarded a federal Pre-Kindergarten (Judy Center) expansion grant, we are now able to support families and their children ages 0 through Pre-K at J.P. Ryon.
Please contact us if you would like to learn more about the Charles County Public Schools Judy Center.
History of the Judith Hoyer Childcare and Education Program
The Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Enhancement Programs were established in July 2000, through Senate Bill 793. As a result of this legislation, the Maryland General Assembly allocated $7 million to establish the Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Enhancement Centers (hereafter, the Judy Centers). The Judy Centers provide Enhancement Grants for private providers, and track progress in school readiness using the Maryland Model for School Readiness (MMSR). The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) was charged with administering these programs.
Judy Centers were designed to provide a comprehensive set of services for at-risk children birth through age five and their families. Judy Centers are located in or affiliated with elementary schools and provide full-day, full-year services. Services were designed to foster a child’s readiness for school. Twenty-three counties across Maryland were awarded grants to establish Judy Centers.
- Judy Center - Cecil County Public Schools
www.ccps.org/Page/374 The Judy Center is located in Thomson Estates. The Judy Center is a grant through Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) held by Cecil County Public Schools. The purpose of this grant is to provide services to families who live in the Thomson Estates Elementary School feeder pattern in order to increase school ... - Judy Center - Wicomico County Public Schoolsjudy.wcboe.org/ The mission of the Judy Center is to provide comprehensive, integrated, full-day, full-year services that promote school readiness for children birth through age six. ... and physical well-being and motor areas enhancing readiness to school while supporting families in their abilities to support their children's early learning.
- Judy Center - Kent County Public Schoolswww.kent.k12.md.us/JudyCenter.aspx Welcome to the Kent County Judy Center! The Judy Center Partnership is a collaboration of many community agencies in Kent County, Maryland dedicated to providing comprehensive, community based, early learning programs for pre- school children and their families. We believe that all children should enter school ...
- Judy Centers - Montgomery County Public Schools, Rockville, MDwww.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/earlychildhood/judycenters/ Locations. There are two Judy Center Partnership Programs in Montgomery County Public Schools: The MCPS Gaithersburg Judy Center, located at Summit Hall Elementary School, serves the families from the Summit Hall and Washington Grove elementary schools attendance areas; The MCPS Silver Spring Judy Center, ...
- Silver Spring Judy Center - Montgomery County Public Schools ...www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/dtecps/earlychildhood/judycenters/silver-spring.aspx The Montgomery County Public Schools Silver Spring Judy Center Grant Partnership program brings together a system of comprehensive early childhood services for families and children from birth to age 5. The Judy Center is a part of the Division of Title I and Early Childhood Programs and Services and enlists the aid of ...
- Judy Center / Overview - Queen Anne's County Public Schoolswww.qacps.org/domain/76 The Judy Center Partnership is a collaboration of many public and non-profit agencies in Queen Anne's County Maryland dedicated to providing comprehensive, community-based, early learning programs for pre-school children and their families. We believe that all children should enter school ready to learn, and that ...
- Judy Center :: Talbot County Public Schoolswww.tcps.k12.md.us/index.php/departments/curriculum/judy-center The Judy Center is a partnership between Talbot County Public Schools, community programs, agencies and organizations, as well as private businesses and most importantly families, with the goal of assuring that ALL children enter school with the readiness skills they need to succeed. What happens in the first 5 years of ...
- Judy Center - Patuxent Appeal Elementary Campuspaecweb.calvertnet.k12.md.us/parents/judy_center The Judith P. Hoyer Center for Early Childhood Education (Judy Center), located at the Patuxent Appeal Elementary Campus, is one of 25 original early childhood partnerships in the state. ... The mission of the Judy Center is to provide services designed to promote school readiness to children ages birth through five.
- Campfield Early Learning Center: Homecampfield.bcps.org/ Campfield was designed to offer comprehensive educational services to young children and their families. The center serves children from three through five years of age from the following home school communities: Bedford, Milbrook, Randallstown, Scotts Branch, and Wellwood International. The full-day kindergarten ...
- Judy Center at Belle Grove - Anne Arundel County Public Schoolswww.aacps.org/JudyCenterBelleGrove Judy Center at Belle Grove. 4502 Belle Grove Road Baltimore, MD 21225. Google Map. School Phone: 410-222-6589/6500. Hours: M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm. Grades Served: Birth-4yrs. Program Manager: Savannah Stamates · website Icon School Website · Twitter Icon Our School Twitter ...
- Magnolia Elementary School: Judy Center - Edlinewww.edline.net/pages/Magnolia_Elementary_School/Judy_Center being socially adjusted, emotionally aware, and able to communicate with adults and other children having an awareness of print and letter-sound... (cont'd). Who will benefit from the Judy Center approach at Magnolia Elementary School? Children in the Magnolia community will benefit because the learning environments ...
- SMCPS - Judy Center - St. Mary's County Public Schoolswww.smcps.org/ssp/judy-center Judy Center. The Judy Center is a collaboration of many public and non-profit agencies in St. Mary's County Maryland dedicated to providing comprehensive, community based early learning services for children birth through kindergarten and their families. We believe that all children should enter school ready to learn, and ...
If one Google's American education philosophy and look at articles tied to early American leaders and their goals in building American public education you will find a completely different history then what existed before REAGAN/CLINTON in MOVING FORWARD. As someone with higher degrees in Education------the dynamic in public education from a JOHN LOCKE----towards a JOHN DEWEY came with transition from an FDR being left social progressive as was our public education still feeling the influence of JOHN LOCKE the AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT-----educating 99% of people to be CITIZENS.
Locke was not someone to aspire in modern days as he was a thinker from several centuries ago-----but our US public education was styled on LOCKE'S theories of freedom, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Below we see Locke's philosophies are exactly what our founding fathers embraced-----today we see JOHN DEWEY------global 1% neo-liberals slid DEWEY into place on the tails of FDR LEFT SOCIAL PROGESSIVISM------and DEWEY was far-right wing neo-liberal from of course Chicago's raging neo-liberal University of Chicago. Baby boomers were lead to believe our public school philosophies were still JOHN LOCKE'S ----I AM MAN------WITH RIGHTS AND FREEDOM-----while Clinton era brought JOHN DEWEY and global 1% pragmatism -----educating for what global corporations need.
BOTH ARE CALLED PROGRESSIVE -----LOCKE WAS SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE IN RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND EDUCATING FOR CITIZENSHIP-----AND DEWEY WAS MOVING FORWARD PRE-K TO CAREER VOCATIONAL TRAINING ONLY.
THE JUDY CENTER takes 99% WE THE PEOPLE to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%--------JOHN LOCKE public schools for several centuries took 99% WE THE PEOPLE to being citizens with rights.
John Locke
A philosopher during the Enlightenment period who held a more positive view about humans. He thought that humans were able to improve themselves by learning from experience. He criticized the absolute monarchy and favored self-government because he thought humans were able to govern their own affairs and look after the welfare of society. He also thought the government's job was to protect the rights of its citizens and that its power came from the consent of the people.
Locke was tied to building civil society with morals and ethics-------DEWEY is tied to pragmatism to what corporations need to profit.
John Dewey on Progressive Education
John Dewey (1859–1952) was one of the United States’ best known academics, philosophers and public intellectuals. From humble beginnings in Vermont, he managed to achieve a PhD in philosophy and become a professor at the University of Chicago.
In its course of development on a world scale the democratic movement forced consideration of the needs and claims of one section of the oppressed after another. Out of the general cause of “rights of the people” there sprouted specific demands voicing the grievances of peasants, wage workers, the religiously persecuted, slaves, women, paupers, the aged, the disabled, prisoners, the insane, the racially oppressed.The movement to reform child education must be viewed in this historical context. Children as such are not usually included among the oppressed. Yet they necessarily compose one of the weakest, most dependent and defenseless sections of the population. Each generation of children is not only helped but hindered and hurt by the elders who exercise direct control over them.
**************************************
John Locke on Education and Play
John Locke (1632-1704) is perhaps best known for his political theories and his influence on early-American political thinking. The notions of natural rights, social contracts, and governmental checks and balances, which he put forth in his Two Treatises of Government (1690), appear throughout the major documents of the American revolutionary period, including the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. But Locke also held strong beliefs regarding education, and his letters to a friend on the subject eventually evolved into Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693), a manual for the education of young gentry boys which emphasized morality and practicality in all aspects of instruction.
Part of Locke's philosophy involved play as a necessary and important part of the educational process. The following excerpts illustrate this concept:
"§69 . . . They must not be hinder’d from being children, or from playing, or doing as children, but from doing ill; all other liberty is to be allow’d them. Next, to make them in love with the company of their parents, they should receive all their good things there, and from their hands. The servants should be hinder’d from making court to them by giving them strong drink, wine, fruit, playthings, and other such matters, which may make them in love with their conversation."
"§73 None of the things they are to learn, should ever be made a burthen to them, or impos’d on them as a task. Whatever is so propos’d, presently becomes irksome; the mind takes an aversion to it, though before it were a thing of delight or indifferency. Let a child but be order’d to whip his top at a certain time every day, whether he has or has not a mind to it; let this be but requir’d of him as a duty, wherein he must spend so many hours morning and afternoon, and see whether he will not soon be weary of any play at this rate. Is it not so with grown men?"
"§130 Play-things, I think, children should have, and of divers sorts; but still to be in the custody of their tutors or some body else, whereof the child should have in his power but one at once, and should not be suffered to have another but when he restored that. This teaches them betimes to be careful of not losing or spoiling the things they have; whereas plenty and variety in their own keeping, makes them wanton and careless, and teaches them from the beginning to be squanderers and wasters. These, I confess, are little things, and such as will seem beneath the care of a governor; but nothing that may form children’s minds is to be overlooked and neglected, and whatsoever introduces habits, and settles customs in them, deserves the care and attention of their governors, and is not a small thing in its consequences."
"§149 . . . Children should not have any thing like work, or serious, laid on them; neither their minds, nor bodies will bear it. It injures their healths; and their being forced and tied down to their books in an age at enmity with all such restraint, has, I doubt not, been the reason, why a great many have hated books and learning all their lives after. ’Tis like a surfeit, that leaves an aversion behind not to be removed."
Source: John Locke. Some Thoughts Concerning Education. Vol. XXXVII, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909-1914.
__________________________________________
There is no way better in making child care cheaper than to have global corporate campus employees do it for free as part of their jobs. Who is getting more of those child care dollars? Higher income citizens who will see that funding going to these corporate campus child care enrichment schools.
Clinton era 1990s is when DEWEY neo-liberal education philosophy soared flipping from an FDR selling LOCKE left social progressivism in educating students to be ready to be leaders and citizens. CLINTON/OBAMA neo-liberals worked hard to PRETEND we were still LOCKE SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES in public education while MOVING FORWARD DEWEY PRAGMATIC WHATEVER BRINGS CORPORATE PROFIT/POWER. In other words returning to DARK AGES. If we looked at the ridiculous talk from both HILLARY AND TRUMP during 2016 election it was filled with the WOMEN'S WORKPLACE issues tied to child care and maturity.
Your Money, Your America
Trump's child care plan is gift to the rich, report says
by Heather Long @byHeatherLong February 28, 2017: 7:06 PM ET
Trump's childhood home is up for auction (again)
President Donald Trump has vowed to make child care in America cheaper.
But Trump's current proposal, which he touted during his prime-time address to Congress Tuesday evening, will do little to help the working families who need the most relief. That's according to a new analysis from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.
Making child care more affordable is one of Trump's signature promises to voters. It's listed in his contract with the American voter. His daughter Ivanka Trump played a large role in crafting the plan, which includes three new tax benefits and paid family leave for new parents.
Just about everyone agrees that child care costs in America are astronomical. It now costs more to put a kid in child care than college (if you get in-state tuition).
"My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make child care accessible and affordable," he said Tuesday. He went on to call on Congress "to help ensure new parents have paid family leave."
But an analysis by the Tax Policy Center finds that Trump's proposal is a gift to the rich. The tax experts at TPC say 70% of the benefits will go to families that make $100,000 or more. And 25% will go to people earning $200,000 or more.
"Trump has identified a real challenge affecting working families, but his proposal would do little or nothing to help them," Elaine Maag, an expert at the Tax Policy Center, told CNNMoney. A typical middle class family earns about $56,000.
Related: Even Trump voters want the minimum wage raised
Trump's child care plan (so far)
The heart of Trump's plan is to significantly expand the tax deduction that families can take for child care expenses for kids under 13. Anyone making less than $250,000 ($500,000 if married) could deduct the average cost of child care in their state. (The average would be based on the age of their child, since it usually costs more to care for infants and toddlers).
That sounds great, but families have to pay income taxes to Uncle Sam in order to take advantage of the deduction. Many working class families pay nothing in federal income taxes because they earn too little in income to owe anything.
On top of that, Trump wants to create a "dependent care savings account" (DCSA) to allow families to save up to $2,000 tax-free that could be used to pay for care for kids or elderly parents. Parents could even use the money to pay for summer camp.
Again, it sounds good, but poor families that desperately need a break on child care are unlikely to have extra money to put into the savings account.
"Child care is a major crisis in America, but the Trump plan is badly designed," says Ajay Chaudry, who served in the Obama administration and is the author of "Cradle to Kindergarten: A New Plan to Combat Inequality."
But others, like women's rights champion Anne-Marie Slaughter, say any progress on affordable child care should be applauded.
"If Ivanka Trump could actually get something like this through, it would be real and important progress," Slaughter tweeted.
Related: America's favorite retailer is...
How Trump wants to help the poor
The final part of Trump's plan is aimed at helping poorer families. It's a refundable tax credit so working parents who don't end up owing federal income tax could actually get money back from the government. The maximum amount a low-income family could receive is $1,200 under Trump's tax proposal, but most working class families would get far less than that.
The Tax Policy Center says a couple earning $30,000 a year would get $574 back. It's a modest amount compared to the average child care bill. Stay-at-home moms or dads would not be eligible for the tax credit, but wealthier stay-at-home parents can take advantage of the deduction.
Putting a four-year-old in full-time care ranges from $4,439 a year in Mississippi to a whopping $17,863 a year in Washington D.C., according to Child Care Aware.
Trump introduces paternity leave
On the campaign trail, Trump also floated the idea of providing new moms with up to six weeks of partially paid maternity leave. Now he is taking that a step further by calling for leave for "new parents," which sounds like it would include mothers and fathers.
Trump's original plan called for maternity leave to come from state unemployment insurance programs. But there was a lot of concern about that since not all workers are covered by those programs.
Trump's daughter Ivanka has been working with Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee on refining the plan.
"One of the things that is most troubling as a mom in the workforce is finding child care and being certain that your children are safe and well cared for," Rep. Blackburn told CNN in early January.
There are also concerns about how Trump will pay for this child care policy. The Tax Policy Center estimates just the tax deductions and credits will cost $115 billion over the next decade. The Tax Foundation estimates it would cost $500 billion over the next decade.
"This would be a big help financially for families," says Rachel Greszler, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that hasn't taken a stance on Trump's child care proposal. "But it comes at a big cost."
The price tag may cause Congress to reject the proposal. Congresswoman Blackburn's office and the White House did not respond to CNNMoney's request for comment.
RSS Feed
