New York City received more than 50,000 applications for its free preschool programs in just two weeks, Mayor Zohran Mamdani said on Friday.

That number is about half of the total applications the city received last year for its 3-K and prekindergarten programs — some 94,840. But families of 3- and 4-year-olds still have nearly a month to apply, and many families often wait until the end of the application window since applications are not accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.

Applications remain open through Feb. 27.

“Every child deserves access to free, high quality childcare – and we’re making sure families across the city know that now is the time to enroll in 3-k and pre-K,” Mamdani said in a statement.

Mamdani seems to be taking a page from Mayor Bill de Blasio’s playbook, when the former mayor launched the city’s massive free pre-K program a decade ago and made outreach a major focal point. De Blasio’s administration to get the word out, particularly in low-income neighborhoods where families were less familiar with the city’s new offerings, and staffers called families of 4-year-olds across the city to encourage them to apply.

Former Mayor Eric Adams, however, did not focus as much on outreach, complained City Council members, who fought for more funding to to families. Last year, about 1 in every 5 seats for the city’s free child care programs for children ages 4 and under, or more than 27,000 of roughly 136,000 seats, went unfilled,

The new mayor has a vested interest in making sure : Not only did he vow to strengthen the city’s 3-K program and ensure that it’s truly universal, showing the demand for the city’s existing programs will help shore up support for his 2-Care program for the city’s 2-year-olds.

In her recent executive budget proposal, Gov. Kathy Hochul to help New York City roll out its 2-Care program and committed to invest $500 million over two years in the program. The city is aiming to create 2,000 new child care seats for 2-year-olds in high-need areas of the city in the fall, then grow to 8,000 seats the following year, and reach all of the city’s 2-year-olds by the end of Mamdani’s first term.

On Friday, Mamdani visited a home-based child care provider in Manhattan’s Chinatown as a way to show his commitment to the providers who operate out of home and often offer care that is culturally and linguistically responsive to families in their communities.

The administration will likely have to rely heavily on home-based providers to scale up its 2-Care program, which will pose many logistical hurdles. That from losing kids to 3-K and pre-K programs and the COVID pandemic. More recently, the Trump administration’s have affected the immigrant-heavy workforce, advocates and providers have said.

Emmy Liss, a former de Blasio administration staffer who is heading the mayor’s Office of Child Care, acknowledged that not all home-based providers fared well in the rollout of the city’s 3-K and pre-K programs.

“We want to work closely in partnership with them in this next phase of work, because we cannot do this work without them,”

Families can apply to 3-K and pre-K online through or by calling 718-935-2009. City officials said any family that applies by the deadline will receive an offer.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at .

was originally reported by Chabeli Carrazana of . .

They started showing up shortly after the now viral video was posted to YouTube, claiming Minnesota day cares run by Somali Americans were rife with fraud. The video showed no real proof of that claim and has since been . They came anyway.

The first time it happened, the day care received an anonymous call from a woman brusquely asking them to open the door. When Fay, the owner, went outside, a man was already there recording. “There’s nobody here,” he was saying into the camera on his phone.

“Can I help you?” she asked him. The man said he was there because of Nick Shirley’s video. He wanted to see the children.

“I’m not going to let you in,” she replied. “There are kids here.”

“If you’re not lying,” he told her, “let me in.”

Fay, whose name The 19th has changed to protect her identity over fears for her safety, didn’t waver. Even under normal circumstances, she would never let an unknown man enter the day care and come near the children, much less film them, and certainly not under these circumstances, as a Somali day care provider who suddenly feels like she has a target on her back.

It’s been like this for over a month. A pair of young men turned up one night looking through the windows until a nearby business owner walked up to them and asked them to leave. Another time, an older man came twice in one day with a paper in hand, trying to pull open the doors.

“Does he want to get to the kids? Does he want to shoot us?” Fay wondered. She called the police.

Child care providers in Minnesota — especially Somali Americans — are facing high levels of harassment in a city besieged by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. As strangers continue to show up asking to get access to the children inside, there is also the constant fear that ICE may come for the parents, the children or their staff, a large portion of whom are immigrants. Nationwide, about child care workers are immigrants, almost all of them women. It’s a fear now extending from child care to schools, with parents standing up adhoc networks to support providers, teachers and other immigrant families.

“I really love America more than I love anywhere in the world, and now I am feeling scared and sad and humiliated,” said Fay, who has been in the country for more than 20 years, is an American citizen and has been operating her center for nearly a decade.

The video YouTuber Nick Shirley posted just after Christmas alleged widespread fraud at day cares in Minnesota that were siphoning government funds but not providing care for any children at all. In the video, Shirley goes to multiple Somali-run day cares. Some appear closed, others do not let him in when he asks to see the children. Unannounced inspections by state officials into the centers following the video found them operating normally, and nearly all have prior going back years that further prove they have been serving children. Some fraud at child care centers in Minnesota has been previously , but there is that widespread fraud is taking place.

Nevertheless, the video has created a powerful narrative of rampant abuse, drawing the attention of the president and precipitating a drastic surge in ICE activity that by many accounts has turned South Minneapolis into something resembling a war zone. Already, have been killed by federal agents and — including — have been hurt and detained.

“As a child care community we are feeling attacked and we are an easy target: Child care historically has always been done by women and especially women of color in an exploitative practice,” said Leah Budnik, the board secretary at the Minnesota Association for the Education of Young Children, a child care advocacy organization.

After Shirley’s video, the Trump administration put a freeze on child care funding to the state, though funds are still available . The administration also asked for additional documentation such as attendance records and student information from providers, an effort that Minnesota’s Department of Children, Youth and Families has ratcheted up by sending members of the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to parse through paperwork. That means that armed law enforcement is now joining in on the compliance checks, raising questions from providers about the need for that step — particularly around children.

“I can understand the need for the state to have people-power to go in and collect documentation the federal government is asking for in very short notice, but bringing armed law enforcement into child care centers is probably not the right way to do it,” Budnik said. “It does make people feel scared and criminalized.”

Cisa Keller, the president and CEO of Think Small, a nonprofit that works with many of the state’s child care centers offering additional education and support services, called the administration’s response to Shirley’s video a “kneejerk reaction” that is ultimately going to harm providers who had nothing to do with the false allegations. Most of the nine programs in the Shirley video, she said, are programs her staff has worked directly with.

“We are in and out of those programs with coaching and professional development, and we have a presence as part of the system,” Keller said. “We would be able to see if something was going awry.”

Instead, what’s happened is an escalation of a situation where children are going to be the most directly impacted, she said.

In the Twin Cities, where the bulk of ICE activity is taking place, the situation has boiled over to full panic. Providers are losing staff to the ICE raids because immigrant staffers are either being arrested or choosing to stay home. Some families the providers serve are , not taking their children to school or day care to avoid ICE.

Dawn Uribe, the owner of four Spanish-immersion preschools in Minnesota, said two of her staffers have been detained by ICE. One of them was on break at work in early January when it happened and called a supervisor to let them know they were being taken away and to please inform their family.

Since, a vast community mobilization effort led by parents has sprung up to support staff, centers and other families.

Over the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend this month, a group of about 20 grandparents and parents showed up to a two-hour training at one of Uribe’s day cares to learn how they could step in as volunteers should the school lose additional staff and be unable to meet teacher-to-student ratios. (By law, day cares must adhere to strict ratios for child safety; in Minnesota there can be to every teacher, for example.) The parents and grandparents who showed up learned about shaken baby syndrome, how to do accident reporting and how to ensure kids are accounted for at all times should they ever need to be called on to step in.

The parents, Uribe said, are also delivering food to staff, taking parking lot shifts to watch for ICE and ensure teachers get safely to and from school, and standing watch in the lobby.

“The community in general, the Twin Cities in general, we don’t like what’s happening and we are going to stand up and say that this is wrong,” Uribe said. “Every time there is a training offered [in the community] people are there and they’re showing up to help their neighbors, they’re showing up to take groceries, they’re showing up to protests to be an observer and record what’s going on. That part’s powerful.”

Sarah Quinn, a mom of two in Minneapolis, said parents at her older daughter’s elementary school had been working together to take food to immigrant students and their families since ICE first showed up in the city in early December. When reports that ICE was patrolling near the schools started to circulate, parents stepped in to give kids rides to school using spare booster seats and car seats. They got an estimated 50 kids back to school in December through those efforts.

But then came Shirley’s video and the murder of Renee Nicole Good. Calls for aid flooded in. The preschool Quinn’s son attends got so many harassing calls in one day that police had to be sent to the school.

Parents started to set up school patrols, stationing volunteers in the parking lot and in their neighborhoods to make sure kids, families and staff could come and go to school safely. The number of parents doing food deliveries to other families’ homes shot up.

“People said ‘jump’ and we all kind of said, ‘How high?’” Quinn said. “As parents who care about our neighbors and who love this part of Minneapolis life that is diverse and involves immigrant families who have really just been responding as neighbors.”

They have also resolved to be more careful, watching everyone who comes and goes from the schools to make sure they are not inadvertently letting anyone in behind them who could harm the kids. In Chicago late last year, ICE agents entered a Spanish immersion preschool and detained a worker .

“We are not going to be Minnesota nice,” Quinn said.

Parents in Quinn’s daughter’s elementary school were made aware in December of a child in her grade who had not been at school for a week. They later learned the child’s parent had been detained and the other parent was keeping the child home out of fear.

When Quinn went into her daughter’s class recently to do a holiday craft, she realized the missing child was her daughter’s deskmate.

It’s presented a quiet challenge among the parents in the immensity of this moment: How do you talk to a second grader about what’s unfolding around them?

“We have had to find a lot of different ways to talk to our kids about how to be safe. Our children know the word ‘ICE’ and they know the word ‘ICE agent,’” Quinn said.

They’ve developed something of a mantra between them.

“What do we want?” Quinn may ask.

“We want them to leave,” the kids will reply. “We want all of our immigrant friends to feel safe.”

This story was originally published by . for their newsletters.

One California Head Start program has closed and three others face imminent closure due to the federal government shutdown, affecting about 1,000 very-low-income children and 270 teachers.��

The closures would leave families scrambling for child care and teachers without income. The longer the shutdown drags on, the more programs are at risk of shuttering.��

“Losing a Head Start program has detrimental effects not just on children and families, but also has immense ripple effects on the community,” said Melanee Cottrill, executive director of Head Start California. “Head Start is far more than a safe place for children to learn and grow — it’s a community hub … The negative effect on regional employment and the local economy would be felt many times over.” 

A Head Start program in Santa Cruz County has already closed, upending child care arrangements for hundreds of families.

Encompass Community Services, a Santa Cruz nonprofit, was forced to close all 11 of its Head Start centers on Thursday because no one at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was available to process the group’s Nov. 1 grant renewal or send money.

“Head Start is part of the fabric of this community,” said Elaine Johnson, chair of the Encompass board. “This is about babies, children, and families not having access to basic needs.”

The centers, mostly clustered in the farmlands around Watsonville, serve some of the lowest-income families in the region. About 300 children are enrolled in its program.

3,000 children at risk 

Three more Head Start programs in California — in Los Angeles, the Central Valley and the far northern part of the state — also have Nov. 1 grant deadlines and face imminent closure. Another four programs with Dec. 1 deadlines would be the next to shutter if the government shutdown continues.��

In all, more than 3,000 children and hundreds of teachers at those eight centers would be affected within the next month if Congress fails to adopt a budget.

Nationwide, about 134 programs serving 65,000 children face closure this week due to the shutdown — with Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Missouri having the of children affected, according to the National Head Start Association. Even if Congress agrees to fund the federal government this week, re-opening would not happen immediately: It could take up to six weeks for the money to reach individual Head Start centers.

Popular and effective

Founded in the mid-1960s, Head Start is a free child care program providing meals and a play-based academic curriculum for children from birth through age 5. Families can get prenatal visits, referrals for medical and dental care, housing and job assistance and other services.��

To qualify, families must earn below the federal poverty level — $26,650 a year for a family of three. In California, that bar is very difficult to meet due to the . Last year, the state’s Head Start centers enrolled about 83,000 children at 1,835 centers.

Head Start, created to give low-income families a boost, has largely been successful: Alumni have higher graduation rates, higher college-going rates and are less likely to live in poverty as adults, .

It’s also very popular. When President Donald Trump threatened to cut the entire program this past spring, Head Start supporters flooded Congress with urgent pleas to save it from the budget axe. , although other government cuts have left a deep impact on the organization and its families.

Potential cuts to the federal , or SNAP, and Medicaid would have an immediate impact on Head Start families, while other recent cuts have already hampered Head Start’s day-to-day operations, Cottrill said.

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department, which oversees Head Start, closed half of its regional offices in April, leading to long delays in processing paperwork. For Head Start centers, that’s meant months-long holdups for routine purchases such as dishwashers, Cottrill said, along with delays related to minor program changes.

Back-up plans

In Santa Cruz, Encompass was able to partner with the Pajaro Valley Unified School District in Watsonville to temporarily provide child care to most of the families enrolled in Head Start, starting next week. But the past few months of budget uncertainty have been nerve-wracking, Kim Morrisson, interim executive director, said.

The organization has been in talks with a slew of state and local agencies to come up with back-up plans for funding the $9-million-a-year program.

“We’re trying to roll with the punches and just focus on serving our families,” Morrison said. “Head Start is a big, national program. We just can’t imagine a world where it doesn’t exist.”

This article was and was republished under the license.

was originally reported by Chabeli Carrazana of . .

Vicki Shabo had spent more than a decade advocating for a federal paid parental leave in the only rich country that doesn’t have it. Then in 2021, just when it seemed like it might happen, lawmakers and sent it tumbling back down the list of priorities.

Shabo wracked her brain: Why was this issue that continuously discarded as a nice-to-have and not a need? Advocates had tried so many strategies to help lawmakers understand, but there was one, she realized, that hadn’t yet been tapped.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

Politicians kept treating paid leave and other care policies as expendable because our culture treated them like that. And what are some of the best tools to change cultural attitudes? TV and film.

“As a person who grew up in Los Angeles and has always sort of felt the parasocial engagement with favorite television characters and television shows, I was fascinated by the ways in which other issues and causes had used on-screen storytelling to move forward changes in culture and in policy,” Shabo said.

The concept of a “designated driver,” for example, was popularized through American TV shows and films in the late 1980s in an effort to reduce alcohol-induced accidents. Like with paid leave, the policy effort had stalled, so advocates worked to get messages into that featured characters abstaining from drinking if they were driving. From 1988 to 1992, the number of deaths tied to alcohol-related car accidents dropped 25 percent thanks to stricter laws and enforcement, but also a marked that was furthered by on-screen representation.

There was also a meteoric rise in representation of LGBTQ+ characters on screens in the years leading to 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality. A found that 34 percent of adults who had recently shifted their views on LGBTQ+ people said they viewed them more favorably because of characters they watched on TV. Shows like “Modern Family,” “Will & Grace” and “Glee” all played a meaningful role in , . By 2015, Bob Greenblatt, the chairman of NBC Entertainment, said the TV industry “ in advancing the conversation” on LGBTQ+ rights.

That idea gripped Shabo, who realized depictions of caregiving, gender and family dynamics on screens were often still playing on old tropes like the . Data from the Geena Davis Institute, which analyzes gender representation in media, shows that men are still depicted as the breadwinner on screen when in real life it’s more evenly split. Women are often shown either at home or at work but . Child care is rarely mentioned.

Helping viewers see that issues related to work, family and care are not theirs alone to bear, but that other families are dealing with them, too, and systemic support can also help could lay the groundwork for policy shifts, Shabo said. Changing how the public thinks about solutions could be what pushes policymakers to place issues like parental leave higher on the priority list.

“I just thought about the ways in which television and film are representing people’s lives as it relates to work and family obligations, but rarely doing so in a way that reveals the structural components of the individual struggles that people are facing, and often tends to invisibilize and kind of keep private — in the way that people do — challenges with work and family,” she said.

So in 2022, she started to build out , her entertainment initiative with the Washington, D.C.-based progressive think tank New America, to provide research, resources and tip sheets to writers, producers and other creatives about how and why they should shift the caregiving and gender narratives they bring to the screen. The initiative’s newsletter reaches more than 400 creatives, executives, media researchers and others, and Shabo regularly presents her research to Hollywood creatives at public speaking events.

by the initiative shows that 92 percent of viewers say realistic work, family and caregiving themes are important to see on screen, and 65 percent would be more likely to subscribe or keep subscribing to a streaming service that carries programming that shows authentic care and family stories.

“There’s a business case, a creative case and a social impact case to make these stories more visible,” Shabo said.

But moving an entire industry on an issue that lawmakers are still grappling with is a challenge, and an even bigger one at a time of political division. The right has more vocally expressed views on caregiving in recent years, from Vice President JD Vance advocating for to taking over Instagram feeds. Finding child care, taking parental leave or figuring out elder care for an aging family member are viewed by many conservatives as private family problems.

Writers and experts told The 19th that in this political climate studios are nervous about making content the Trump administration may disagree with. And even though Hollywood is largely liberal, executives are risk adverse and less likely to support projects that center authentic gender portrayals. A show like “Jack Ryan,” about a CIA analyst, has a better chance of getting made than a show about women’s health care.

“There is this perception that audiences just want pure entertainment and there are tried and true formulas,” Shabo said.

Kirsten Schaffer, the CEO of Women in Film, an advocacy organization fighting for gender parity in film and television, said there is “definitely” a contraction taking place both in terms of the kinds of stories told and gender representation in the industry because of the administration’s stance on issues related to gender and diversity, equity and inclusion.

“In times of abundance there is more getting made and more openmindedness. In times of scaling back everybody is more risk adverse,” Schaffer said. “Now women in the industry will say to me, ‘That executive who was so committed to having 50 percent women on every director, writer list that they sent out are now relieved that they don’t have to do that anymore.’”

Sasha Stewart, a writer on “Dying for Sex,” a limited series about a woman with Stage IV breast cancer who leaves her husband to explore her sexuality, said she and writer Keisha Zollar initially tried to sell a show about women’s health care that would focus on issues including reproductive care and menopause in a more documentary style. It ultimately was not greenlit.

“It was mostly that all the female execs loved it and then they had to go pitch it to their male bosses,” Stewart said.

“Dying for Sex,” she said, “was packaged in this super marketable sex adventure” and was the show that execs backed. But Stewart said the team worked hard to pull from personal caregiving experiences to build out the story, including talking to oncologists and patient advocates. One advocate they consulted even played a nurse on the show. Stewart, a cancer survivor, leaned on her own experience and that of her husband, who was her primary caregiver.

The story follows protagonist Molly on her journey, but flips some traditional scripts to also focus on her best friend Nikki, who steps in to be her primary caretaker. In the third episode, Nikki is fired from an acting job due to the demands of navigating health insurance, appointments and providing care for Molly.

The writers room for “Dying for Sex” was made up of six women, one nonbinary person and one man, plus two women showrunners. Because so much of the cast and crew were also mothers, the team worked hours that allowed everyone to get home to their families, Stewart said. All of those elements mattered in what ultimately made it on the screen.

“I would love it if somebody in Congress watched the show, or any state or local government,” Steward said. “Maybe more people would try to pass paid family medical leave and other important issues.”

But “Dying for Sex” was the exception. For most writers, Stewart said, the goal is to get on whatever job they can, and then if it’s possible they may try to put caregiving storylines in.

The industry has long been unsustainable for women, women of color and caregivers, an issue that took center stage during the 2023 when creatives walked out of their jobs in response to growing disparities in the industry. Streaming has reshaped TV, especially, leading to smaller writers’ rooms, more limited opportunities and dwindling pay and benefits that have made it more difficult for writers to stay in the business.

As more diverse writers are shut out, it becomes harder for authentic stories about care, gender and family to make it on to screens. Writers of color and women are on TV and film sets. Only about 28 percent of showrunners were women in 2024 and just 8 percent were women of color, the lowest share of women in five years according to . And according to the Writers Guild of America’s , the share of women screenwriters dropped from 45 percent to 33 percent in just one year, from 2023 to 2024.

On screens, some caregiving storylines have cut through, both on streaming and network television. HBO’s medical drama “The Pitt” delves into the often invisible challenges family caregivers face around end-of-life care. On ABC’s “High Potential,” the protagonist is a single mother of three who, in the show’s pilot, negotiates a job contract to ensure it includes child care for her kids.

“Do you have any idea how expensive child care is these days?” she says.

In film, too, one of the year’s big superhero epics, “Fantastic Four: First Steps,” was at its core a that centered not Mr. Fantastic, but Sue Storm, who early in the movie donned a maternity spacesuit without anyone fussing over her or asking her to rest.

Care is on screens more than we realize, it just isn’t often directly addressed, said Zollar, who was also a writer on “Dying for Sex.”

There are still “a lot of people who just aren’t thinking about it, who it’s more out of sight out of mind and it’s not centered in how they build stories,” she said. But more directly referencing issues of family and gender on TV and film can shape attitudes, including those of legislators — the majority of whom are older men — who may not be thinking about topics like paid leave and child care.

“Beacuse we don’t label it or we don’t remind [viewers] that it is an essential part of the story, we can forget its existing in stories. We are not seeing how essential it is to the story itself,” Zollar said.

In Shabo’s work talking to writers about the ways in which they can , she said she’s found that many of them frame their work as thinking about their characters rather than thinking about issues. Luckily, “our set of things we want to see on screen are well positioned because they are so human and personal, and it’s not a stretch to get a story line of somebody trying to navigate work and family,” she said.

It’s medical shows that acknowledge that patients can be workers, too — are they missing work and need leave? It’s workplace shows that don’t shy away from the realities of biases that affect wages and conditions. It’s pregnant characters or parents who wrestle with securing child care to work, men also taking leave and parents who name the caregiving solutions they need.

In Shabo’s view, care and gender issues aren’t “the broccoli to hide” in shows and films. Instead, her research is helping to make the case that “this is actually the meal that audiences want to see.”

Arkansas’ child care system needs additional funding to avoid widespread closures and layoffs due to changes to the state’s financial aid program for low-income families, providers told the state Early Childhood Commission during a Wednesday work session.

A survey of providers found that about a quarter of them, spread out among 50 of Arkansas’ 75 counties, expect 400 layoffs by November, said Shahid Sheikh, owner of four Northwest Arkansas child care centers. Sheikh was among several child care providers and experts invited to the commission’s work session for discussion.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

Eighty of the 250 facilities who responded to the survey are likely to close in the next 60 days, and many of them are located in low-income communities where child care is already scarce, Sheikh said.

Sheikh and other child care providers have in recent weeks about the Arkansas Department of Education’s proposed changes to the . In September, the agency announced a new reimbursement structure and a sliding-scale copayment structure, with the goal of reducing the four-digit child care waitlist and making the program more financially sustainable.

Child care advocates said the changes would create for families in need. The education department responded to the pushback by delaying cuts to providers’ reimbursement rates until Nov. 1, but moved forward with participant co-payments on Oct. 1 as planned, according to the .

The reimbursement rate cuts are expected to cost providers statewide $727,000 per week, according to the survey. That adds up to $37.8 million in lost revenue for local economies, Sheikh told the commission Wednesday.

“We stand to lose more money by not investing in [child care] than we do by investing, so while this may be a budget problem right now, in a year’s time, it’s going to be a budget disaster for the state,” he said.

Education department officials are “going through our budget with a fine-toothed comb” in search of solutions, said Stacy Smith, deputy commissioner for the department’s Division of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Families who are working or enrolled in school with income at or below the state poverty level will not pay a copayment for children before kindergarten, and families above the poverty level will pay a copay scaled to income and the age of the child, .

Providers said their concerns about the copays being too expensive have come true.

“The amount that we’re asking families to pay is unreasonable for most of them, especially as such a quick ask,” said Jenny Castillo, who owns five Spanish language-immersion child care centers in Northwest Arkansas. “For it to be so fast, they have no time to prepare, to pivot.”

Castillo said she hopes the state finds a way to ensure that families pay no more than 7% of their household income for child care, a national recommendation.

The increased copayments as of Oct. 1 have already forced some Arkansas child care centers to close because parents could not afford to pay anymore, Sheikh said.

“We’ve already heard from some who have essentially [said], ‘It’s easier for me to quit my job and get on SNAP and have food stamps cover me than for me to go and work’” to try to afford child care, Sheikh said.

The School Readiness Assistance Program is funded by the federal . Education department officials are currently unable to seek help from the federal government regarding the program because of the ongoing government shutdown, Smith and Education Secretary Jacob Oliva both said.

The might force the department’s Office of Early Childhood to lay off federally-funded staff, Smith said.

The state Legislature will meet in April for its regularly scheduled fiscal session, but child care providers said Wednesday that they can’t wait that long for financial aid.

State Reps. Denise Garner, D-Fayetteville, and Julie Mayberry, R-Hensley, were the only lawmakers who participated in Wednesday’s discussion. Rep. Kendra Moore, R-Lincoln, and Sen. Jane English, R-North Little Rock, were also present at the work session.

Mayberry said she appreciated the input from the providers, particularly the data, and said a special legislative session might be necessary to address the problems presented. Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders is responsible for calling a special session, and Mayberry urged providers and the education department to involve Sanders’ office in discussions of next steps.

Garner, a member of the commission, said she hopes the discussion will soon create “action items.”

“The things we need to know as legislators are what pots of money we actually have…how much money is that and where to pull money from the rest of the state budget and put it into early childhood [education],” Garner said.

The commission is scheduled to meet again at 10 a.m. Tuesday.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

Almost 20 years ago a San Diego nonprofit created a preschool to focus on the “little guys” — children who experience domestic violence and other  before kindergarten. 

Today,  and it’s something of a model in showing other schools how to address childhood trauma.

Mi Escuelita provides services for kids in a single location that for most other families would require intricate coordination among multiple health care providers, educators and social programs. 

The children learn in a classroom that is always staffed with at least one therapist, they participate in one-on-one therapy, and join group therapy sessions. Their parents take part in special classes, too, where they learn ways to support their children.

Researchers from UC San Diego have paid close attention to Mi Escuelita and followed how its graduates fared after leaving the preschool. The university also works with the school to evaluate outcomes from each cohort of students. Here are four takeaways from those reports.

The kids leave ready for kindergarten

Students who graduate from Mi Escuelia outperform or do at least well as their peers in kindergarten, according to a UC San Diego analysis of their scores in reading and math tests.

It looked at kindergarten students in the Chula Vista Elementary School District from 2007 to 2013 and found a higher percentage of Mi Escuelita met math, reading and writing standards than the district’s general population.

That’s not a given because research shows that children exposed to domestic violence have  than their peers, which can set them back in school. 

And they do well for years

The length of UC San Diego’s study allowed its team to follow Mi Escuelita graduates through fifth grade. The results suggested that their preschool experience helped the kids throughout their childhoods. 

Their average scores on several standardized tests exceeded those of the general population at Chula Vista Elementary School District, especially in math.

“Taken together, the Mi Escuelita program demonstrates clear benefits to children who may otherwise fall quickly and unsparingly behind with regard to school readiness,” the UC San Diego researchers wrote. 

Better relationships at home

Some families turn to Mi Escuelita in moments of distress, such as after experiencing domestic violence. The preschool provides counseling for parents and students alike, which may contribute to behavioral improvements at home.

Over the past five years, 64% of the families in the program reported sensing fewer conflicts and 83% of them noticed an increase in closeness. 

“Families reported that children’s communication, behavior, and listening skills improved both at home and at school,” a UC San Diego team wrote in an evaluation of student and parent surveys that spanned 2020 to 2024. 

It takes a village

Running Mi Escuelita costs about $1.3 million a year, a sum that nonprofit South Bay Community Services raises through a mix of donations and government funding. That cost — along with the challenge of hiring trained educators and therapists — makes the program difficult to replicate. 

But, other schools and government agencies are watching Mi Escuelita to see what kind of services they can carry over to other venues. 

“We can spend less later on intervention programs and alternative facilities,” said Hilaria Bauer, chief early learning services officer at , a Bay Area nonprofit childcare provider. “There will be less truancy, less big behaviors or expulsions or alternative programs, and all of those ‘fix’ initiatives if we really focus on the time in the life of a child that really makes a change.”

In at least 11 counties across North Carolina, early childhood education agencies and community colleges are running child care academies designed to get new teachers into classrooms faster than traditional routes — and they’re doing it at little to no cost to participants.

Lasting from two to six weeks and requiring 20 to 64 hours of class time, these child care academies are customized to meet the local needs of the communities they serve.

In recent months, there’s been growing interest in expanding access to child care academies as a way to address early childhood educator shortages. found 60% of licensed child care providers in North Carolina were experiencing staffing shortages.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

Mary Olvera, the director of teacher education for the North Carolina Community College System, said that more than a dozen additional community colleges are preparing to offer child care academies or have expressed interest in doing so, which could help ease those staffing concerns.

A $1.476 million pilot to expand child care academies with state funding was included in the earlier this year. The pilot funding did not make it into the General Assembly’s “,” which was signed by Gov. Josh Stein in August.

The North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education (DCDEE) has grants of up to $50,000 available for as many as 10 community colleges or universities in the UNC system that want to run their own child care academies between Oct. 15, 2025 and July 31, 2026. .

Child care academies were also lifted up as “scalable local solutions” in a February . The governor’s North Carolina Task Force on Child Care and Early Education highlighted child care academies in its June .

“I’m very happy for the attention that child care is getting right now,” Olvera said. “The governor’s task force is coming up with lots of really wonderful recommendations, and it does feel like they’ve taken a little turn that’s more solution-focused; people seem to be getting on the same page.”

Given this momentum, here’s what we know so far about where child care academies are operating, what they look like, how they’re funded, and how their graduates are helping to fill gaps in the early childhood education workforce.

Child care academy models

There are two basic models of child care academies that have developed in recent years — a classroom-ready model and a teaching credential model. Both are referred to as child care academies.

They may be administered by local Smart Start partnerships, community colleges, or Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) organizations, but are typically a collaboration among two or more of these entities.

Olvera said the classroom-ready model originated at .

This model requires at least 20 hours of classroom instruction and qualifies students to work in a licensed child care facility. Trainers in the classroom-ready model help students register with the North Carolina Identity Management Service (NCID) and complete required health and safety training — including CPR, First Aid, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and Infant/Toddler Sleep Safety (ITS) — as well as criminal background checks.

Prospective teachers and their employers would typically have to manage this process and incur associated costs on their own. That’s not the case with the child care academy.

“It was designed to get people everything they need to step into work,” Olvera said.

Upon completion of the classroom-ready child care academy, students are qualified to work in a licensed child care facility, but not as a lead teacher.

The teaching credential child care academy model is different. It includes all of the training from the classroom-ready model, but also the curriculum for EDU 119 — the semester-long introductory community college course that has historically been required for prospective lead teachers in licensed child care classrooms. Another route to becoming a lead teacher is five years of experience in a licensed facility.

“So we’re incorporating training in child development, the domains of development, activity planning, social-emotional development, brain development, all those topics that we touch on in 119,” Olvera said.

When students complete the teaching credential child care academy, they earn a continuing education credit (EDU 3119) that transfers to any of the state’s 58 community colleges and counts in place of EDU 119, which gets them the teaching credential that qualifies them to be a lead teacher. Olvera said this also sets students up to continue toward an associate degree in early childhood education.

In addition to qualifying students to work as a lead teacher in licensed child care, the EDU 119 credit also qualifies potential teachers to work as teaching assistants in elementary school classrooms.

Olvera said the child care academies also give students the opportunity to learn about , , and apprenticeship opportunities, all of which can propel them toward higher incomes in the long run. Plus, some models host job fairs or find other ways to connect prospective teachers directly to employment opportunities when they graduate.

“I think the greatest benefit for this is you’re exposing students to local resources,” Olvera said. “So if we’re working with a Smart Start or a CCR&R, we’re pulling in what’s local, and so the students are getting an opportunity to really meet people in the field.”

Counties currently offering some form of a child care academy include: Buncombe, Cabarrus, Catawba, Davidson, Davie, Durham, Johnston, McDowell, Rowan, Stanly, and Wayne. If you know of additional child care academies in other counties, please email Katie Dukes: kdukes@ednc.org.

Child care academies in action

EdNC interviewed leaders from five child care academies to learn more about how they operate and how they’re funded.

Classroom-ready models

The Smart Start partnerships in Wayne and Johnston counties received joint funding from the Camber Foundation for their child care academies. Both partnerships work closely with their local community colleges to offer the classroom-ready models to prospective early childhood educators. Both programs run for about 60 hours over two to three weeks, and include much of what would be required for earning the EDU 119 credential.

Valerie Wallace, executive director of the , said they hosted five child care academies in 2024 and 2025, three of which were funded by the shared Camber Foundation grant. In addition to covering the full cost of the training, they provide students with graduation incentives and tuition assistance if they continue their education, putting their average cost per student at $1,040.

Wallace’s colleague Shelly Willis, director of program coordination and evaluation, said 63 students have graduated from their academies, with more than half either going directly to work in child care or pursuing higher education.

Wallace and Olvera were involved in crafting the language in the that included funding for a child care academy pilot. Funding would have gone specifically to the child care academies in Wayne and Johnston — in addition to 10 more counties — with the provision that:

That would mean shifting from the classroom-ready model to the teaching credential model in Wayne and Johnston Counties, which Wallace said they’re ready to do.

“We’re kind of hoping it’ll go through with the partnership between the North Carolina Partnership for Children and the community college system, so that the alignment piece is there with that continuing ed (credit),” Wallace said.

Their next child care academy will run from Oct. 13 through Oct. 24.

Emily Englehart, the professional development coordinator for the , said they hosted three child care academies during the 2024-25 fiscal year. Twenty-six students have graduated, 14 of whom secured jobs in child care facilities, and four of whom are pursuing higher education.

The program costs around $430 per student, which is covered by the Camber Foundation grant they share with Wayne County.

Englehart said their next child care academy runs Oct. 6 through Oct. 24, and those who are interested can reach out to her via email for a registration link: eenglehart@pfcjc.org.

Priority will be given to Johnston County residents who are not currently working in child care and have no prior experience.

The child care academy in Stanly County is led by Cyndie Osborne, the program head of the early childhood education department at . Working with trainers from the (the local Smart Start) and (the local CCR&R), students spend two weeks getting classroom-ready.

Osborne said she’s run two child care academies so far under the classroom-ready model, but she’d love to implement the teaching credential model — she just doesn’t have the funding to cover the cost of a college course.

“What we have to consider is why it is important to have educated individuals working with young children,” Osborne said.

Students at the Stanly County child care academy paid for some aspects of their training, but could be reimbursed through a grant from the that also covered the cost of some classroom materials.

Thirteen students have completed the classroom-ready model in Stanly County, and Osborne said five to 10 have received jobs as a result. She’s considering offering another child care academy in the spring of 2026.

“There are waiting lists for parents in our county, not having space because the centers don’t have teachers,” Osborne said. “So that was kind of the push for me.”

Teaching credential model

Katie Dowdle, the director of early childhood education at , leads a teaching credential child care academy. The first one was held for two weeks in July.

“And I mean, it’s like ‘The Fast and the Furious,’” Dowdle said, comparing the pace of the continuing education course to the popular movie series about street racing.

Dowdle said the requirements for getting into an early childhood education classroom can be overwhelming, especially for young students. She told her academy students: “This is where you start. This is where we can get you going, get you into school, get you that experience of being in a child care center, and then pursuing your associate’s degree.”

Six students finished with the credential that qualifies them to be lead teachers in a licensed child care setting. Four went directly into child care classrooms and two are pursuing higher education in Dowdle’s classroom this semester.

A three-year grant from the Dogwood Health Trust covered the costs, which Dowdle estimates to be between $500 and $600 per student. The grant also covers the full cost of tuition and materials for students pursuing their associate degree in early childhood education at McDowell Tech.

Dowdle said the fast pace of the child care academy’s teaching credential model was made possible through collaboration with the community.

“People really rallied behind the idea of it,” Dowdle said, referencing coordination with the county’s health department, the sheriff’s office, and McDowell Tech’s own EMS and EMT trainers.

Because McDowell County has a small population, Dowdle was able to develop personal relationships with licensed child care centers and pre-K classrooms, helping her match the community’s need to her student’s qualifications after they earn their teaching credentials through the child care academy.

“We’re small but mighty,” Dowdle said. “We don’t have the manpower to do a whole lot of things, but this is something that I think we could do well.”

Durham County has also adopted the teaching credential model, but their first child care academy lasted six weeks instead of two.

Kristi Snuggs, president of , said the Durham child care academy is a collaboration between her organization (the local CCR&R) and .

Funding came from Duke Community Affairs — specifically the Duke Doing Good Economic Mobility Grant — along with Durham PreK. The cost per student was an average of $1,264.

Snuggs said she thinks spreading the EDU 3119 credit across six weeks gives students more time to reflect on, process, and apply what they’re learning. And the length of the Durham child care academy didn’t seem to deter students from signing up — Snuggs said they had 140 applicants for 20 slots.

“Ours was outrageously popular,” Snuggs said. “And the other cool thing about ours is it’s aligned with Durham PreK and we’re really trying to make the workforce match the children, and so every (aspect) of ours was bilingual (in English and Spanish).”

She’s working with Durham Tech to schedule their next child care academy during the 2026 spring semester.

Snuggs said the Durham child care academy adopted the teaching credential model because when students complete the program, they’re able to start their careers as a lead teacher right away, putting them on track to earn higher incomes.

Dowdle made a similar point.

“The thing is, these positions that they’re going into, they’re not making a lot of money,” Dowdle said. “The reason that you’re in child care in the first place is because you have a heart for children, it has nothing to do with pay.”

She said starting their careers debt-free and with a credential that can transfer to course credit for continuing their education can improve their long-term career outlooks.

This first appeared on and is republished here under a .

was originally reported by Chabeli Carrazana of .

For 60 years, Head Start has provided child care for the most vulnerable children in the United States with little controversy.

It was established by a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1965, and supported by a since, including Richard Nixon, who called it ; Ronald Reagan, who established ; and George H. W. Bush, who . Legislators from both parties have supported Head Start, which operates in all 50 states, and is the only child care option available in some rural parts of the country.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

This year, though, politics came to the door of Head Start. Caught in the political crosshairs of the Trump administration, the program is facing unprecedented upheaval that could shutter child care centers and, as many of Head Start experts who spoke to The 19th see it, fundamentally alter the program.

“For me and for a lot of other directors, trust has been deeply broken,” said Jen Bailey, executive director of Reach Dane, which operates 17 child care centers in Wisconsin and offers Head Start services. “The mission is we serve the neediest of the needy and poorest of the poor. For us, changing that would violate the mission of Head Start.”

The program, which now serves about , was created to support low-income families. It provides free child care to children ages 3 to 5 (Early Head Start serves those under 3) and offers a wide array of services for the entire family, including prenatal support, health screenings and connecting parents to job training, housing and food assistance.

But the Trump administration has dealt several financial blows to the program this year. At one point, it looked like Head Start may be .

And more recently, the future of Head Start has been thrown into uncertainty by an unprecedented directive from the administration: Programs are to ban undocumented children from Head Start entirely.

Attorneys general in have sued the federal government over this rule, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has agreed to halt enforcement in those states until September 11. As programs wait for additional guidance on whether they will have to implement that change, the mood is one of unease, confusion and fear, according to interviews with nearly two dozen Head Start experts across the country, including providers, state association directors and federal workers.

There’s a discomfort over just how much the politics of the moment has reached their programs. They don’t want to say anything that could turn D.C.’s attention on them.

At the same time, they are trying to continue to serve Head Start families, knowing that soon, some of them could be barred from it. Because the work they do is so deeply connected with the populations the Trump administration is targeting, they are now weighing a moral dilemma: If Head Start changed, could they stay?

“We would have staff say, ‘I don’t want to work in a program that has this eligibility criteria.’ And I would understand that,” Bailey said.

Already, her centers are seeing dips in attendance from families in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid as they bring their kids in. About undocumented people live in Wisconsin, according to the Migration Policy Institute; Reach Dane’s centers serve some 1,000 children.

Bailey told her staff that although the political rhetoric has changed, their core values have not. Reach Dane is not making any changes until more guidance arrives from Washington. But if they were forced to check for immigration status, she’s not sure she could stay.

“If it came to the point where it could not take care of staff and kids and families at some sort of basic level, I wouldn’t be able to ethically sit in that space,” said Bailey, who has worked in Head Start for 25 years.

Project 2025, the 900-page document from the conservative Heritage Foundation that has turned into a for President Donald Trump’s second term, dedicates one paragraph to Head Start. Citing “rampant abuse” of children and “lack of positive outcomes,” advising: Eliminate Head Start.

While there have been documented cases of , it still has one of the most rigorous safety standards in American child care (the incidents affected fewer than 1 in 1,000 children, according to the Administration for Children and Families, the division that oversees Head Start), and the issues are . Numerous studies have also found positive outcomes both in the and for children enrolled in the program.

In April, a leaked White House budget showed the Trump administration was angling to , claiming it used a “radical” curriculum that gave preference to undocumented children and embraced diversity, equity and inclusion. In response, the National Head Start Association sent an to the president signed by 50,000 Head Start parents and alumni.

The letter-writing campaign would grow to number nearly 500,000, and state Head Start associations also mobilized to speak out against the program’s elimination. Ultimately, it worked. Head Start received flat funding from Congress — what amounts to a budget cut when accounting for inflation.

Still, the programs have taken economic hits — in some cases, ones they could barely recover from. Shortly after Trump took office at the end of January, funding to programs was cut off as part of a government-wide freeze. serving nearly 20,000 children across 23 states spent days and weeks waiting for money to come down. The true number is likely much higher, experts said.

April Mullins-Datko, the Head Start director at ADVOCAP, a community action agency in Wisconsin that provides Head Start services, said her funding was delayed for more than a month. They used some reserve funds and took out a line credit to stay open.

“We were limping. Robbing Peter and paying Paul,” said Mullins-Datko, a 20-year Head Start veteran who was a Head Start child herself in the 1980s. Her twins also went through the program.

A Government Accountability Office report found that the Trump administration violated federal law when it withheld funds from programs that had already been approved by Congress. Between January 20 and April 15, Head Start grantees received $825 million less in funding when compared to the same period in 2024.

Another headwind arrived in April. Five of the 10 regional offices that support Head Start and other child care programs suddenly closed as part of a reduction of the federal workforce. All were . Programs in lost specialists who helped them navigate challenges with funding, who served as the first points of contact if a safety incident occurred. The remaining offices, which were already shortstaffed, took on entire states’ caseloads.

Katie Hamm, who oversaw the Head Start program in her role as the deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development for the Biden administration, called it “a game of whack-a-mole, where you think you solved a new issue and here comes another one.” Hamm left the role in January 2025.

But what has really rattled Head Start is the change on immigration. Since the on undocumented children was issued in July, programs have been in something of a holding pattern.

Fundamentally, the guidance redefines Head Start and other HHS programs as a “federal public benefit,” or in other words, welfare. Head Start has never been defined as a form of welfare, said Allison Siebeneck, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, one of the groups suing the federal government over the changes to Head Start. Welfare reform in the 1990s specifically excluded K-12 and early childhood from the definition of a “federal public benefit,” she said: “They could have included it, and they didn’t.”

Redefining Head Start means only U.S. citizens or “qualified aliens” can access the program, excluding undocumented children but also those who are seeking asylum, those with U visas such as victims of serious crimes, those with temporary protected status and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

When the Trump administration published its rule change, it that undocumented immigrants “should not burden” our benefits system. The change was effective immediately.

The new rules came with no additional information on how programs are to screen families. Programs are still waiting for implementation guidance from the federal Office of Head Start. Thousands of teachers, parents and Head Start alumni, meanwhile, have in the federal registrar responding to the change, many of them condemning it.

The rule change does include an exemption for nonprofits that offer Head Start services, which is about 70 percent of all programs, but the administration noted that all programs, regardless of the exemption, are encouraged to and screen students for immigration status. Siebeneck called it a “thinly veiled threat.”

“You have one statute that says you’re exempt,” she said, “but when you go to sign for your grant you also have to sign a certification saying you’re in compliance with federal law.”

Program directors, who already saw what it was like to suddenly lose funding earlier in the year, are now afraid to lose their grants altogether if they don’t comply with the requirement. Some may comply before exact guidance is released or regardless of nonprofit status.

In Illinois, Lauri Morrison-Frichtl, executive director of the Illinois Head Start Association, said one Head Start director has decided not to enroll children if they find out the family is undocumented.

“They don’t want to do something that gets them in trouble. Our programs follow the rules,” Morrison-Frichtl said. “They are not rule breakers.”

“It’s an odd moment that what we’ve always been doing has now turned into the politics of the moment,” reflected Mullins-Datko, the Head Start program director in Wisconsin. “We can usually find common ground with our children no matter what our politics are because typically we all want the same things for our children: We want them to thrive, we want them to be healthy, we want them to get a good education — that’s why Head Start has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout its history.”

Many Head Start providers would love to return to a time when Head Start wasn’t political, when their primary concern was how to better serve the families and children in their care with the resources they had. Others feel like the mission of Head Start — to protect those most in need — has moved them to speak up at a time when those communities are being targeted.

“Head Start has been around for 11 administrations and 60 years and have never seen these types of asks of us changing our approach to eligibility and enrollment, despite Congress having a lot of opportunities to do that,” said Tommy Sheridan, the deputy director of the National Head Start Association.

The national group is in touch with members across both sides of the aisle who support Head Start. , Sheridan said, has expressed support for the program, saying in May that he would if programs shut their doors and adding that he “fought very hard to make sure Head Start gets all of its funding next year.” Nevertheless, the changes to Head Start have taken place under Kennedy’s leadership at HHS.

It’s now a matter of, “How do we move Head Start out of the way of politics?” Sheridan said.

In Indiana, Rhett Cecil, the head of the state’s Head Start Association, is also trying to keep the conversation nonpartisan.

“There’s no agenda in Head Start,” he said.“I find it remarkably refreshing in a polarized society.”

Cecil is waiting for guidance on implementing the immigration change from the federal Office of Head Start, but said it’s not something his members have thought through much yet. “Our programs will adhere to the standards of Head Start,” he said. About undocumented immigrants live in Indiana, putting it in the middle of the pack among states in terms of population.

“Here’s what’s changed in Indiana,” Cecil said: “Nothing.”

Megan Woller, the executive director of the Idaho Head Start Association, said providers in her state are worried about scaring families away and bringing too much attention to Head Start.

“Idaho is a political climate that is right in line with the Trump administration. My state association colleagues across the country who all live in different political climates are advocating in very vocal ways and are banding together,” Woller said. “My members have not wanted to do that. There is a fear of being too vocal and causing a big stink and putting too much focus on Head Start.”

But in other parts of the country, programs have been moved to speak up. Four Head Start state associations and two parent organizations are named plaintiffs in the against the Trump administration. All are blue or purple states — Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Oregon and California.

In more conservative states, few programs and Head Start Associations were willing to speak to The 19th about this year’s changes. But for some in red states the immigration directive feels like a step too far.

Julie Stone, who leads the Ohio Head Start Association, said the immigration change represents a fundamental shift for programs.

“We are about meeting families where they are. We are about doing what’s right for children,” Stone said. “We’ve never been required to establish their status, but we know their parents are working and we know we have them in a safe and nourishing environment.”

And ICE enforcement is only ramping up. The agency’s annual budget is set to . That makes her anxious, “knowing there will be more enforcement and we are somehow … getting wrapped up in this,” Stone said.

Multiple programs and state Head Start agencies told The 19th that the political rhetoric around immigration is distorting the reality of who the families who rely on Head Start are, what they contribute to their communities and why the program is needed.

“What I know to be true about Head Start: The majority of [the families] go to work,” said Jennie Mauer, the head of the Wisconsin Head Start Association. Many of those undocumented families in her state work in the dairy industry, which relies on migrant workers to operate. Those workers, an estimated of the dairy workforce, need somewhere to put their children.

Otherwise, how will the Dairy State continue to be the Dairy State?

“We can have all that [political] rhetoric, but I want safe communities and I want safe children,” Mauer said. “I do not believe that coming to Head Start and putting these questions to families who are just trying to go to work is the way to do it.”

In Detroit, this year of upheaval has already led to the closure of a Head Start program, leaving 324 children without child care.

The center, called Focus: HOPE, had been receiving Head Start funding as part of a consortium of three programs. Last year, the consortium disbanded and each program applied individually. CEO Portia Roberson said her program tried to put together a grant application that aligned with the priorities of the new administration, noting that it served “all” children.

They were supposed to hear back about their grant in March, but nothing came. Michigan was one of the states that lost its regional office in April, meaning the staff that ensured grants were evenly spaced so communities didn’t lose Head Start services were gone.

By July 31, still not having heard anything, the money ran dry. Focus: HOPE laid off nearly 100 staff members and of their Head Start services. Roberson expected parents to be angry with her. But instead, she said, “they were here to figure out how they could support what we are doing and to let people know how important we are for their families.”

In mid-August, the program learned its grant application had been denied. No explanation was given at first — they later learned that one of the providers in the consortium, Starfish Family Services, had received the funding Focus: HOPE expected to go to them.

“The current administration talks about wanting to build a workforce. My question is how do parents become a part of this workforce if there is no safe and educational place to put their children?” she said. Now, “I’m taking people out of the workforce.”

Roberson is hoping Starfish will take them back in as a subgrantee, which will allow her to service the families in their care. If that happens, she will then have to consider what those services would look like with the new immigration changes.

“What gets lost in all of this is we are just trying to help people who need help. We are not making decisions around race or class or political party,” she said. “

She doesn’t know how she could enforce the immigration directive. If it came down to protecting children from being removed, Roberson said, Focus: HOPE would do “whatever needs to be done.”

This story was originally published by . for their newsletters.

Break out the crayons and finger paint: Every 4-year-old in California is now eligible for transitional kindergarten.

Fifteen years after a handful of school districts opened the first TK classrooms, California now has the largest — — early education program in the country. At least 200,000 youngsters will attend TK this fall, enjoying low teacher-student ratios, age-appropriate curriculum and plenty of music, art and circle time.

“This really is something to celebrate,” said Carolyne Crolotte, policy director for Early Edge California, an advocacy group. “Now, there’s no question about who’s eligible and who isn’t. Everyone is eligible.”

TK is meant to be a bridge between preschool and kindergarten, preparing 4-year-olds for the routine and expectations of elementary school while honing their social skills and self-confidence. In TK, children learn how to make friends, write their names and do basic math. Mostly, they’re supposed to fall in love with learning.

Holding frogs and counting marshmallows

That was the case at Silverwood Elementary in Concord last week as a dozen bright-eyed 4-year-olds hovered around their teacher, Elizabeth Swanson, as she gingerly held out a tree frog for their inspection.

Several got a chance to hold the docile, turquoise amphibian.

“What does the frog feel like? What do you wonder about the frog?” said Swanson, who was recently named Mt. Diablo Unified’s Teacher of the Year. “How does he use his hands? How do you use your hands?”

But the tree frog — one of several critters in her classroom — was not the most popular attraction that afternoon. That honor belonged to the “home living” station, a corner of the classroom dedicated to costumes, dollhouses, a mini kitchen and everything else an imaginative youngster would need to play house.

Last year, an enterprising group of students, inspired by the opening of a Dutch Bros. near the school, used the home living station to open their own coffee shop. They ordered lattes and made coffee and collected money. Swanson turned it into a math lesson by asking them to count marshmallows and decide how many should go into each cup of hot chocolate.

“One child would be the barista and one would be the customer, so they learned how to share and take turns,” Swanson said. “They were getting so much practice with social language and communication. And everything was integrated into play.”

Importance of fun

Judy Krause, executive director of early childhood programs at Pacific Oaks College in Pasadena, said that’s exactly what a TK classroom should be like. The focus should be on experimentation and hands-on activities, based on students’ interests. TK, she said, is not a version of kindergarten; 4-year-olds have unique developmental needs. The main one, she said, is having fun.

If children are enjoying themselves, they’ll learn naturally, she said. If they feel overly pressured or bored, they’ll lose interest and miss out on valuable skills they’ll need for kindergarten and beyond.

“It’s a really big deal that we have this opportunity for all 4-year-olds,” Krause said. “But we have to make sure we’re doing it right.”

15-year rollout of TK

California , and a decade later began expanding it to all districts. This year is the culmination of that effort, with all 4-year-olds now eligible and 91% of districts offering the program. The only districts that are exempt are those that don’t receive money through the state’s funding formula because they receive more money through their local property taxes.

Like kindergarten, TK is optional. But many districts, including Mt. Diablo Unified, have seen strong interest from families. A from the Public Policy Institute of California predicted that about 70% of 4-year-olds will enroll in TK this fall, with waiting lists in some districts. Black, Latino and Native American students have been slightly underrepresented so far, although those not enrolled might be enrolled in other programs. The state doesn’t track that data.

Nearly everyone agrees TK is a good idea. Children who’ve attended TK tend to do better in reading and math, and those with disabilities can be identified early and receive services, .

TK, which is free, can be a financial boon for families. Because of California’s high cost of living, child care and preschool costs are among the highest in the country, with families paying up to $20,000 annually — more than the cost of in-state tuition at the University of California.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has long championed TK, setting aside more than $2.7 billion in the years when the state had a budget surplus. The money is to help school districts pay teachers, keep class sizes small and provide other services to the new learners. Ongoing funds will come from the state’s Local Control Funding Formula.

“California is making a big commitment to making transitional kindergarten free and accessible to all 4-year-olds,” Newsom said in a . “When we’re finished, California will have the largest free preschool program in the country, where every 4-year-old can start their schooling on the right track, setting them up for success further down the road.”

Teacher shortage and other challenges

But the TK rollout has had some hiccups. The chief one is finding enough qualified teachers. Because of the small class sizes and the extra qualifications required to teach 4-year-olds, there’s a , according to Early Edge California. Last year the state introduced a and more districts are partnering with local colleges to recruit and train future teachers, which has eased the shortage somewhat.

Another obstacle has been finding classroom space. Like kindergarten classrooms, TK classrooms must contain bathrooms, which means that districts had to find money to remodel existing classrooms, or build new ones altogether. Last year’s has funding available for TK projects.

TK has also had an impact on preschools. Families in California have several early education options: state-funded preschools for low-income families, federal Head Start preschool for very low-income families, and private preschools. Now that 4-year-olds have a free option, existing preschools have seen an enrollment decline that, in some cases, has led schools to raise prices or even close. A from UC Berkeley showed that TK expansion has led to “” in some parts of the state.

Bruce Fuller, an education professor at UC Berkeley who’s researched TK, said it’s too early to tell who’s benefitting from the program.

“We’re seeing a shift away from preschool and toward TK, but we don’t know if TK is actually reaching new families,” Fuller said. “We might just be seeing families who would have enrolled anyway.”

Dual-language programs

A handful of districts offer dual-language TK classes, which have been popular with parents. Karina Galustians, a parent in the Tujunga neighborhood of Los Angeles, enrolled her daughter Julianna last fall in an Armenian-English TK class in Los Angeles Unified’s Pinewood Early Education Center.

Galustians’ husband speaks fluent Armenian, and the couple was eager for Julianna to be able to communicate with the extended family and learn more about the culture.

“The more languages you know, the better off you are,” said Galustians, whose first language is Spanish. “To find a school where she can get those academic skills and practice her Armenian — me and my husband were beyond grateful. We hit the jackpot.”

Julianna starts kindergarten this fall at another Los Angeles Unified school, where she’ll be part of the Armenian dual language program. “We feel like she’s very well prepared,” Galustians said.

‘Everyone feels included’

Meanwhile, at Silverwood Elementary in Concord, Swanson ended the day by having students put away the blocks and plastic bugs and Eric Carle books. Then she sat with them in a circle and praised each child’s efforts and told them how excited she was to see them again tomorrow.

“David, you were super responsible today,” Swanson told an awed 4-year-old as she handed him a personalized certificate. “Lindsay, you were a good friend. Zaire, you were so respectful.”

Then it was time for the children to go meet their parents, who were waiting at the side of the playground. Swanson chatted with nearly every parent, telling them how much she enjoys their children.

“I think TK should be the same as what we want for society generally,” Swanson said. “It should be a place where everyone feels included and valued. We want everyone to be curious and non-judgmental and happy to be here.”

This article was and was republished under the license.

The new rule was and published in the Monday by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, which oversees Head Start. Some immigrants, including refugees and those with a green card, would remain eligible to access Head Start services, but scores of others, including undocumented residents, DACA recipients and those with Temporary Protected Status or student visas, would not. Those on so-called U visas, typically survivors of domestic violence, drug trafficking or other serious crimes, would also no longer be eligible.

An estimated 115,000 Head Start children and families could be impacted, about 16% of the program’s total 2024 enrollment, according to an

“It’s incredibly inhumane what they’re doing,” said Joel Ryan, executive director of the Washington State Association of Head Start, “and it’s much more far reaching than undocumented people — not just because there are other populations [included], but it has a real chilling effect …  it’ll scare a lot of people that might have mixed status, or they may be perfectly legal, but they’re afraid.”

It’s not yet clear how the new restrictions would be implemented or tracked, and some lawyers and local Head Start leaders are encouraging providers to hold off on any changes until there is more clarity around their legal obligations. This is a particularly tricky moment to introduce such a radical change, experts noted, as many providers are currently recruiting students for the fall.

The new rule was enacted by rescinding a 1998 Clinton administration interpretation of the . That interpretation extended some federal public benefits to undocumented immigrants, which the Trump administration now claims “undercut” the original law, was “improper”  and “incentivize[d] illegal immigration.” The administration has embarked on an aggressive campaign to deport millions of undocumented residents, including by targeting students and attempting to end birthright citizenship.

The updated policy redefines Head Start as a “federal public benefit,” and in doing so, restricts access to early childhood education based on immigration status.

“This new rule is not only unprecedented in the program’s history, but it’s also completely at odds with the mandate for Head Start to provide early education to low-income children and their families,” said Linda Morris, an ACLU senior staff attorney and co-counsel on the lawsuit.

The administration’s stated goal is to, “restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded program benefits intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize illegal aliens,” according to an HHS Head Start is explicitly named as one of the impacted programs “to ensure enrollment … is reserved for American citizens from now on.”

At least 12 other federally funded programs are included in the new rule, such as the and the , which provides funds for people with serious mental illness experiencing homelessness.

The department’s announcement comes after months of layoffs, funding freezes and uncertainty for Head Start, which has reached more than and their families, the majority of them low income, since its inception in the 1960s. the $12 billion program served over 778,000 children from birth to age 5 and pregnant mothers and their families in urban, suburban and rural areas in all 50 states and six territories.

Along with providing early education and resources to kids, Head Start also connects families to community and federal assistance and can help provide a career pathway for parents. The 1,600 local agencies are funded by the federal government, though many also tap into state and local revenue sources.

The program has long been a target of the right, and the conservative playbook has called for its full elimination, arguing Head Start has “little or no long-term academic value for children.”

HHS estimates the new rule could lead to an increase of $374 million in services for American citizens, but that does not account for the cost to families losing services or to the broader economy as working parents lose access to child care, said the ACLU’s Morris.

“It’s important to remember that this new rule is not just an attack on immigrant communities. It’s also an attack on working families,” she added. “The social and economic impacts of this new rule will be felt beyond these families — it will be felt across communities, and really across the nation.”

In May, a coalition of parents and Head Start providers, represented by the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, the ACLU of Washington, ACLU of Illinois, the Impact Fund and others, filed in Washington state against the Trump administration. The plaintiffs alleged the federal government was seeking to illegally dismantle the Head Start program by shuttering half of the organization’s regional offices; laying off scores of staff; and implementing “sweeping and impermissibly vague bans on activities that promote or advance ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ ‘inclusion,’ and/or ‘accessibility.’”

In this updated application, they also argue that expanding the definition of “federal public benefit” to include Head Start is an illegal attempt to rewrite statutory law, which violates the as well as the U.S. Constitution. They are asking the court to prevent the administration from enforcing or implementing this new directive.

“No agency, including HHS, has ever defined early education as a federal public benefit,” Morris said. “This new rule from the administration is completely at odds with how the agency has interpreted Head Start programs [historically], and the administration hasn’t followed any of the processes that it needed to follow in order to implement a change of this kind.”

The rule will also lead to “waves of kids that are unprepared for school” entering the public school system, according to Ryan. HHS’s updated interpretation does not impact undocumented K-12 students’ access to a free, public education, which is Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, although that ruling has also become .

“These claims all stand together,” Ryan said, referring to the original lawsuit and this latest legal pushback.  “I really see it as a cumulative effort to destroy the Head Start program and to make lives harder for very low-income kids and families in the country.”

Despite expanding eligibility requirements, California’s transitional kindergarten program showed declining rates of participation, according to a recent report by the .

After the state launched the program in 2021, school districts offering optional transitional kindergarten began incrementally accepting younger 4-year-olds into the program in 2022 — an expansion from the original requirement that students must be 5 or turning 5 in the fall. The report examined recent enrollment trends in the program to patterns before the expansion and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Although the program showed an overall increase in enrollment in recent years, the rate of participation in transitional kindergarten dropped by 13% since before the pandemic. In the 2023-24 school year, the state’s transitional kindergarten program served over 150,000 students out of an estimated 215,000 eligible children, roughly 70% participation, according to the report.

Latino children showed the largest drop in participation, by 18%, while participation among Black children fell by 12%. Dual language learners had an 18% decline compared to pre-pandemic participation, and children from Pacific Islander, Native American, and Black communities also enrolled in transitional kindergarten at lower rates than their white and Asian counterparts.

Declining participation may be attributed to family preferences for availability and duration, location, learning environment and curriculum for younger 4-year-olds, according to the report. Although most school districts offer the program, basic aid districts, which are funded mostly through property taxes rather than state funding, are also less likely to offer transitional kindergarten due to the expense, the report states.

“What might suffice for a nearly five-year-old is inadequate for an early four-year-old who may need help with toileting, opportunities for rest, and lots of play-based, behavioral learning,” the report states. “Of the districts we interviewed, the top challenges included upgrading facilities to be age-appropriate, developing [transitional kindergarten] curriculum, and building staff and leadership capacity to accommodate early childhood education in K-12.”

To draw in families, the report’s authors recommended that schools provide clear, accessible information about local transitional kindergarten programs to families, including location and after-care options, and that they transition from academic kindergarten-like curriculum to play-based curriculum to accommodate the developmental needs of younger 4-year-olds.

This was originally published on .

was originally reported by Chabeli Carrazana of .��

Parents, you’re not imagining it: The cost of child care is rising. By a lot.

The average annual cost of care in 2024 was $13,128, a 29 percent increase since 2020 — outpacing even inflation. That’s according to an from Child Care Aware, a national child care advocacy group that calculates average prices every year.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

The rapid rise of child care costs is swallowing larger portions of families’ income. On average, a married couple earning the median annual income in their state is draining about 10 percent of their earnings on child care. A single parent spends 35 percent of their income on child care.

In some states, it’s a lot worse. For a married couple with an infant in center-based care, by share of median income are Hawaii (17.9 percent), California (16.3 percent), Maryland (15.8 percent), Oregon (15.5 percent) and Nebraska (15.1 percent). In those states, single parents earning the median income are paying about half their earnings on child care.

That means child care costs are rivaling home costs as the top line item in most family budgets. In 45 states and Washington, D.C., child care for two kids costs more than a mortgage. In 49 states and D.C., child care for two surpasses what families pay in rent.

For years, the list of states where parents are likely to pay more for an infant’s care than higher education has been growing. According to Child Care Aware, the cost of center-based infant care exceeds the cost of in-state college tuition in 41 states now. The organization uses three methodologies to arrive at its average, looking at price, supply of child care providers and the number of child care spots, pooling data from 49 states and Washington, D.C., to arrive at its annual price analysis.

“Child care prices are a sizable part of family budgets — they are by no means under control for the majority of families,” said Anne Hedgepeth, chief of policy and advocacy at Child Care Aware. “If we are going to talk about family budgets, and if we want to talk about things you could solve for family budgets: Make a dent in child care prices. You would really bring down one of those highest costs or expenses for a family.”

Child care remains so expensive because of staff needs and federal investment. To preserve the safety of babies and toddlers, centers are required by law to have more teachers in the classroom. The federal is one person for every three to four infants and young toddlers, and one person for every seven when you get up to 3-year-olds, but each state sets its own ratio. That’s different from a kindergarten classroom, where classes may have one teacher for every 20 kids, for instance. The costs of employing that many people are also not offset by substantial federal, state and local investment like public education is subsidized. So parents are left footing the bill, and centers can only pay their teachers about minimum wage to keep costs as low as possible. Profit margins at centers are only

For years, the United States has toyed with the idea of investing more broadly in child care. Currently, the federal government only covers some costs for very low-income families — and even then only about are able to access subsidized care. But broader proposals that go as far as introducing a “universal” child care system have repeatedly been .

After the pandemic, when , the United States got as close as it ever has to investing more broadly in the industry. Through September 2023, states received a historic investment of $24 billion in stabilization grants that helped keep centers open and raise wages for teachers at .

But after those funds ran out, Congress did not allocate any additional resources.

Among families, there is broad support for more federal and state investment in child care, regardless of political party. In a nationally representative Child Care Aware , 82 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of independents and 68 percent of Republicans said they want their elected officials to increase funding for child care and early learning.

That support is also resounding among men. Another nationally representative found that 90 percent of men, including 87 percent of Republicans, are in favor of ensuring families have access to affordable care.

Since the reversal of Roe v. Wade, Republicans have grown somewhat more vocal in their support of child care investments. On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump said he supported child care but didn’t offer any policy proposals for improving affordability or access. Former President Joe Biden proposed a $400 million child care package that included universal preschool, but it .

At the moment, the closest the Trump administration could come to a child care investment is an update to the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, a tax break for families on their child care expenses that could be in the final version of Currently, most families only get an average tax break of about (the maximum parents can claim for one child is $1,050), which doesn’t do much to offset child care costs that easily run into the thousands. A bipartisan effort in the Senate to update the tax credit could get added into the package. (The House version that passed in May did not include it). The Senate’s Child Care Availability and Affordability Act would increase the maximum amount parents can get back in their taxes through the credit to .

Julie Kashen, a senior fellow and director for women’s economic justice at the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank, said improving the tax credit is a good policy move for the families that benefit from it, but ultimately it doesn’t solve the problems facing the child care industry as a whole.

“It’s one piece of a much larger puzzle,” Kashen said. “If you can’t afford to lay out the money up front to pay for child care, then it doesn’t help you that you have a refundable tax credit.”

Advocates worry child care has so far been a footnote in this administration. In April, a leaked version of Trump’s budget called for , the federally-funded program that provides early learning and other services to half a million very low-income preschoolers ages 3 to 5. After from child care providers and parents across the country, the proposal was ultimately withdrawn.

“It tells us a little bit of what it looks like when policy makers — in particular, members of Congress and members of the administration — hear about child care from the constituents, and what they heard was how much of a non-starter it is to eliminate these core early learning services in every district across the country,” said Hedgepeth of Child Care Aware.

Still, it will likely be a battle to keep the existing child care safety net — a battle increasingly at odds with the majority of American parents who are looking for relief on child care costs.

Because the reality is simple, Hedgepeth said:  “This is not what people are looking for.”

This investment, known as the , was designed to do something radical: meet young children where they are and get them ready to learn –- and thrive –-in the classroom from their first days. Now, that program is .

As someone who has spent two decades leading an independent evaluation of the impact of this initiative and the child-first media it produced — designing , conducting randomized controlled trials, and hearing firsthand from families in cities and towns across America, I can tell you this: Cutting Ready To Learn is not fiscal prudence. It’s a step backward for our nation’s children.

What has made the program effective isn’t just the beloved stories and characters. It is the ability to reach all children and to engage them as learners. Through local public media stations and community partners, Ready To Learn brought high-quality, curriculum-based learning to libraries, public housing, laundromats, afterschool programs, and, of course, home screens.

For decades, if a child’s family could turn on a television or access the internet, they could benefit from educational tools designed to build literacy, math, and science skills. In fact, in the most recent fiscal year alone according to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Ready To Learn programming more than .

And what we know is that when children tuned in, they learned.

Children who engaged with Ready To Learn content in early foundational skills, regardless of whether they were enrolled in preschool. They . They . They began thinking like scientists and problem-solvers.

And they acquired emergent reading skills. Just last week, one of our research teams was conducting an initial round of assessments focused on children’s computational thinking skills as part of a study of Lyla in the Loop. And another study team was putting the finishing touches on a report on the resourceful ways families are engaging with podcasts and saw how the format expanded their children’s imagination. 

These aren’t just cute kids doing cute kid things; these are the building blocks of educational and economic opportunity. The building blocks of a great nation, you might even say.

In an era where roughly half of young children in the U.S. are in any formal early education program (a discussion for another day), Ready To Learn has served all children — especially in communities where access to quality preschool is scarce or nonexistent. It has offered a rare combination of scale, equity, and proven impact.

So why are we making it harder for families to access free, educational resources that work?

The decision to terminate this decades-long effort comes amid broader debates about education, culture, and spending. There are real discussions to be had. But this is a data-driven, cost-effective solution to one of those issues that’s been working.

Unlike many educational interventions that require the development of large-scale infrastructure or intensive professional development, Ready To Learn makes use of our nation’s existing public media system. The research is independently conducted. The materials are publicly available. The value is clear.

In communities all across the country — Tallahassee, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cookeville, Tenn., and many others — I’ve seen what happens when you put the right tools in front of a curious child: They light up and thrive. And when they thrive from their earliest learning opportunities, their potential is boundless. 

Our country has spent decades building this infrastructure and then producing, testing and evolving meaningful content in partnership with families across the country. To dismantle this effort now is to break a promise to those families: that we’ll do what we can, with what we have, to help every child get ready to learn.

Let’s not stop them now.

Morice has been a teacher for over 30 years, 16 of which she has been teaching pre-K; she estimates that she spends around $450 a year of her own money on non-reimbursed supplies like crafts, games, puzzles, books and toys for her classroom. She doesn’t have access to a color printer at school, so she uses one at home to print out pages for her class.��

It’s not uncommon for educators to spend their own money on classroom supplies, which is why the U.S. tax code includes an , allowing teachers in K-12 classrooms to deduct up to $300 a year on expenses that were not reimbursed. But Morice, like so many other early childhood educators, doesn’t qualify to take the deduction. Though she works alongside other teachers in her school, doing virtually identical teaching work, she and other pre-K teachers aren’t able to deduct their expenses.��

Nationwide, early childhood educators earn, on average, less than half what their elementary school counterparts make, with a . Thirteen percent earn below the poverty line, and almost half (43%) rely on public assistance. While policy debates about raising the wages of child care workers often center on bringing in more state or federal assistance, another option exists to shore up the industry using the tax code. 

The education expense deduction is a federal income tax deduction of up to $300 annually for unreimbursed expenses (or $600 if two married educators are filing jointly). The teacher who buys poster board and markers for her classroom, or who enrolls in a continuing education class, can deduct those expenses. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, qualified expenses also included PPE and disinfectant. 

released by the Buffett Early Childhood Institute this month recommends allowing early childhood educators to take the deduction, arguing that the move would help retain workers by “easing a portion of their financial burden” and “demonstrating they are respected for the important work they do.” The brief also points to the problems with the existing recruitment and retention of early childhood educators: Because of the very low pay, there are significant employment challenges for businesses and families, resulting in “billions of dollars of lost economic activity.” Evidence supports this — without access to child care, many people, especially women, cannot work for pay.��

Walter Gilliam, executive director of the Buffett institute and a co-author of the report, believes the discrepancy caused by the tax laws contributes to early educators feeling there isn’t sufficient respect in the field. Gilliam runs an of early educators, and of the 25,000 who responded, he estimated that over 90% would be able to take the tax deduction if it were available to them. 

“They feel neglected, because they often are,” he said of early educators. He pointed to another example during the COVID-19 pandemic, when K-12 teachers were given priority for vaccinations and PPE supplies. Many early educators were skipped entirely, even though, in many cases, they were the ones showing up to work while many K-12 teachers were staying home.

“These kinds of things have huge implications for early childhood educators,” Gilliam said. The brief recommends that Congress extend the federal tax deduction to early educators, and that states consider providing their own tax deduction until a federal version is passed.

But could a $300 tax deduction make a meaningful difference?

Josh McCabe, the director of social policy at the Niskanen Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, doesn’t think so. “I’m relatively confident this deduction wouldn’t make a dent in the problem for a few reasons,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how many ECE workers are 1) spending out of pocket on non reimbursed supplies, 2) are in tax brackets that make a deduction like this more than nominally valuable, and 3) would have their retention decision impacted by this on the margin.” 

And Gary Romano, the chief strategy advisor at Civitas Strategies, LLC, a group that provides tax education and business support, estimates that even with the tax deduction, the maximum amount that early educators would take home is an extra $66 a year. Romano explains that most child care providers max out at the 12% or 22% marginal tax rate, which would be the percentage they’d recoup on the $300 deduction, assuming they spent the maximum amount. He also noted that this is a personal deduction, not a business deduction, and many child care providers who work out of their homes already deduct supplies as a business expense. 

Gilliam acknowledges that even though it’s not a lot of money, showing early educators they are valued may go a long way toward supporting retention efforts. “Do I believe that double digit savings in the pockets of early educators is going to keep them in their seats? Probably not. Do I think showing them a little bit of respect might help? Absolutely.” 

Expanding the deduction would require Congressional approval, it’s not a rule the Internal Revenue Service could expand on its own. Gilliam points to about people who left the early education field. The top reason for leaving was compensation (54%), followed by not enough respect (39%). Other reasons included lack of benefits, lack of support for challenging behaviors, poor working conditions, and the need for more flexibility of hours. 

Morice, the preschool teacher, has even greater confidence: She knows teachers who could take advantage of this deduction, and believes some “need to count every penny.”

And for her, it’s a basic issue of fairness that allows her to do her job well. “I feel truly that if you want the best for these kids and start them out strong and give them a foundation, you have to give them the supplies to do that,” she said. “We can’t do it with one set of blocks all year.”

One in four Wisconsin child care providers could close their doors if the state’s ongoing support isn’t replaced after it ends in June, according to a state-commissioned report released Thursday.

More than one in three providers expect to reduce their capacity for children or the hours they operate, or both, according to the report, based on a survey of most of the state’s licensed child care providers.

The report was commissioned by the state Department of Children and Families (DCF) and produced by the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

It was released by the office of Gov. Tony Evers to support $480 million for child care providers in his 2025-27 proposed budget — a successor to the state’s Child Care Counts program that was funded with federal pandemic relief money.��

“It underscores what those of us in the field have known for a long time — that is, the need for public investment in order to stave off closures and rate increases,” said Ruth Schmidt, executive director of the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association.

The association supports Evers’ $480 million budget proposal and is holding an advocacy day at the state Capitol on April 16, with plans to meet lawmakers.

In a statement announcing the survey findings, Evers underscored his proposal.

“The cost of child care is too darn high, wait lists are too long, and providers are already struggling to keep the lights on, their doors open, and meet demand for child care across our state,” Evers said.

“The results of this survey are crystal clear: if we don’t make needed investments to support our child care providers and industry, programs will close, wait lists will get even longer, providers will be forced to raise prices, and parents and loved ones who can’t afford for [their] costs to get any higher may have to leave our workforce.”

Child Care Counts has provided monthly payments to state child care providers since 2021. From November 2021 to January 2024, it was funded from Wisconsin’s share of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the federal pandemic relief legislation enacted in 2021. The program paid out more than $479 million to providers. After that money ran out, Evers directed another $170 million additional pandemic relief funds to carry the program through June 2025.

Child Care Counts paid out $20 million a month until mid-2023, when it was cut to $10 million a month, with providers getting half of what they had previously received.

The Republican majority in the state Legislature rejected Evers’ proposal to put up to in the 2023-25 budget to continue the subsidy program at its earlier monthly amount.

Providers have credited the Child Care Counts program with making it possible for them to increase pay for child care workers in the face of competition from other employers without being forced to raise the fees they charge parents.

About 80% of the state’s more than 4,500 child care providers received and took part in the survey, which was included in providers’ November application for Child Care Counts payments.

The survey included questions about providers’ experiences before and after the Child Care Counts reduction. It also asked about their expectations after the program ends in June, as well as the potential impact of a continued program.

Two-thirds of providers surveyed reported that after the payments were reduced, they raised fees.

Responding to questions about the impact of state support ending in June, 25% or more of providers in the survey said they would be somewhat or more likely to close. Fully 10% of providers said closing their program “was very or extremely likely,” the report found.

“That’s an incredibly concerning statistic,” said Schmidt. “That’s a lot of child care programs that could be pulling up stakes. It’s going to hit rural communities super hard, but across the state we’re going to see significant closures.”

More than one-third of providers — 37% — said they were “at least somewhat likely” to close some of their classrooms or reduce the number of children they serve. Almost that many, 36%, said they were likely to reduce the number of hours they provide care.

By 59%, providers also expect their waiting lists to grow without continued state support.

Providers also expect to have a harder time hiring and keeping employees, with 66% saying that it was “at least somewhat likely” they will have to cut compensation, including their own. Fully half of providers “said this was very or extremely likely,” the report states.

More than half of providers — 56% — said it was at least somewhat likely that more employees would quit, and 46% said staff cuts were somewhat or more likely.

Of providers in the survey, 69% said “that it was at least somewhat likely” they would have a harder time hiring qualified employees.

About half of providers surveyed — 51% — said they thought it would be “at least somewhat likely” that they would find it harder to provide high quality care.

Between one-fourth and nearly half of providers said they expected to have more trouble being able to meet some parents’ specific needs. Those include providing care earlier or later in the day, serving families in the state’s Wisconsin Shares subsidy child care program for low-income families, caring for infants and toddlers or caring for children with special needs.

“With families already struggling to afford child care, respondents repeatedly described how continued funding — whether at the original or at current levels—would help prevent further tuition rate increases,” the survey report notes. Some providers said it would allow them to hold rates at their current level or reduce them, while others said it would keep the rate of tuition increases down.

Corrine Hendrickson, a New Glarus child care provider and organizer of an advocacy group for providers and families, Wisconsin Early Childhood Action Needed (WECAN), said the survey points out “the disastrous results for children and families after the initial [Child Care Counts] funding wasn’t replaced in the state budget.”

Rural areas, where families are younger and have lower incomes, may be hit the most dramatically if the child care sector contracts, Hendrickson said.

Hendrickson said she is likely to have to raise the rates she charges for her family child care center, which has a capacity of eight children. A $30 increase “will put me out of reach for too many families,” Hendrickson said. “If I lose two children and can’t replace them within a month or two, I will have to close.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

Like a gardener nurturing a young sapling, adults shape the development of young children. From birth to age 5, a child’s brain develops more rapidly than at any other time in life and at a rate of 1 million neural connections formed every second. These connections are not random; they are shaped by interactions with caregivers. When a parent soothes a crying baby, engages in playful back-and-forth, or responds to a toddler’s endless “why” questions, they are literally wiring the child’s brain for trust, empathy and curiosity.

Conversely, when these nurturing interactions are absent or inconsistent, the effects can be devastating. “ shows that children who experience neglect or chronic stress during early childhood often face long-term challenges, including difficulties in learning, poor emotional regulation, and even physical health issues. The reason? Stress hormones like cortisol flood the brain, disrupting neural development and impairing the very areas critical for memory, attention, and emotional control. Such highlights the profound biological impact of relational deprivation.”

Children today often are raised in smaller, more isolated family units, with less access to extended family and community support. Playtime — a key driver of relational and cognitive development — has been reduced, as overscheduled lives and academic pressures dominate. Friendships are fewer, and technology increasingly intrudes on face-to-face interactions. Screen time often replaces the crucial human connections that build trust, empathy and relational skills. 

The good news is that positive relationships can act as a buffer against these risks. Secure attachments — built through consistent, loving interactions — not only mitigate the effects of stress but also promote the development of critical brain functions like executive control, problem-solving, and adaptability — foundational skills for success in school and beyond.

For early education, this means that fostering relationships must be at the core of teaching and learning. Educators who connect with their young learners on a personal level create an environment in which children feel safe and valued, feeding a biological need and aligning with , which refers to methods that emphasize a strengths-based, play-based approach. When children feel secure, their brains are free to explore, experiment and absorb new information.

Schools can amplify these effects by prioritizing relational practices, such as morning meetings, collaborative projects and one-on-one check-ins with little ones and families. Policies that support smaller class sizes and professional development in social-emotional learning can further empower educators to be relational leaders.

The ripple effects extend beyond the classroom. Children who grow up in relationally rich environments are more likely to become relational adults, effective leaders and engaged citizens. They are better equipped to navigate the complexities of life because they have learned, from the very beginning, that relationships are the bedrock of human existence and increasingly a major differentiator in our future of work increasingly dominated by artificial intelligence.

Investing in early relationships is not just an act of kindness, it is a societal imperative; it builds our future relational economy. When we nurture the relational foundations of our youngest learners by showing them love, we unlock their potential and, in turn, create a brighter future for us all.

But now, bills before the state legislature would roll back these reforms and again allow schools to dismiss children in kindergarten through third-grade. 

Three measures under consideration would strip a prohibition on “disciplinary dismissals” — the removal of children from schools — in grades K-3, loosen the definition of student behavior meriting exclusion from the classroom, end a requirement that schools try non-exclusionary strategies before dismissing a child and let schools once again punish youngsters by denying or delaying their access to lunch and recess.

A separate bill would overturn a ban on seclusion for K-3 students — the practice of confining a child in isolation. Some people believe seclusion should be an option when a child’s behavior is out of control. Others call it punitive and cruel, particularly when used on very young children. 

That split was evident in testimony at a recent state House of Representatives hearing on the legislation. Sitting on opposite sides of a windowless Capitol hearing room, the witnesses took turns describing starkly different realities. 

Principal of Jeffers Pond Elementary in the affluent, suburban Prior Lake-Savage Area Schools, Patrick Glynn testified that suspensions provide “the gift of time” so staff can “allow for healing” and create a “re-entry plan” for the student in question. 

Minnesota Elementary School Principals Association President Lisa Carlson, who oversees a school in another prosperous Twin Cities suburb, said a suspension can send a strong signal to a parent in denial about a student’s issues: “For some families, the only way to truly recognize the severity of a situation is to be inconvenienced by it. When a child is suspended, parents are forced to stop, pay attention and take action.”

But parent and educator Ali Alowonle told lawmakers that suspension taught her child the wrong lesson. “She was told that she could not come to school because a police officer had to determine if she were a danger,” Alowonle said. “She began to hate school and refused to go. Suspension broke my kid’s trust in school and adults there.”

Parent Susan Montgomery broke down describing her son’s suspension setting off a destructive cycle. “Now, at 20, he is trying to rebuild his life,” she said, pausing to choke back sobs. “He is taking computer class, participating in healing circle, Bible study, working as a janitor and attending recovery groups — but all behind bars.”

However and whenever lawmakers vote on the bills — they may be standalone legislation or wrapped into an omnibus spending package – they will resurface longstanding racial and demographic divides.

Minnesota has long had nation-leading racial disparities in education, with a teacher corps that is more than 90% white and an increasingly diverse student body. Its schools also have a long history of suspending and expelling non-white students and children with disabilities at much higher rates than their white, nondisabled peers. 

In 2017, the state Department of Human Rights entered into a settlement with 41 school districts and charter schools that were found to have suspended and expelled non-white children and those with disabilities at disproportionate rates. A 2022 from Solutions Not Suspensions, a coalition of advocacy groups that has campaigned for 10 years for laws requiring schools to stop disciplinary practices, found that children of color received 79% of exclusionary discipline despite being 49% of the student body during the 2018-19 school year. Children with disabilities made up 14% of students but received 43% of suspensions and expulsions. 

The agency noted that when the reason for discipline was subjective — e.g. “disruptive behavior” or “verbal abuse,” versus bringing a weapon to school — the disproportionality skyrocketed.  

Armed with these numbers, advocates got a break in 2023, when Democrats gained power in both legislative chambers and the governor’s office. They enacted laws outlawing the use of dangerous prone restraints by police officers stationed in schools and dramatically narrowed schools’ authority to dismiss children. 

But limits on police authority in the wake of Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis officer had divided Minnesotans along both partisan and geographic lines, with city residents saying they were long overdue and rural residents largely opposed. In 2024, with an election looming and the support of rural Democrats feared to be softening, the Democratic-majority legislature reversed the ban on prone restraints.

The 2024 election left the state House evenly split, with equal numbers of lawmakers from each party set to take office. The late discovery that a Democrat did not actually live in the district where he was elected gave Republicans a one-vote majority until a March 11 special election likely restores the 67-67 split. They immediately started working to try to roll back policies enacted by the Democrats in 2023 and 2024.

Support for the discipline reforms passed in 2023 had been weak among rural Democrats. Now, advocates fear that the rollbacks being proposed by the Republicans could clear the state Senate, which has a one-vote Democratic majority. Advocates fear Democratic Gov. Tim Walz would not veto the measures. 

Kate Lynn Snyder is a lobbyist for Education Minnesota, the state’s teachers union. Speaking in opposition to the changes, she reminded lawmakers that it is still legal for teachers to remove students from classrooms. Schools can send children home for less than a day, impose an in-school suspension or send a child to a sensory break room. When there is an ongoing, serious safety threat, expulsion is still possible.

“The largest complaint I hear about school safety from my members is that when our teachers call administrators to send someone to their office, no one is answering the phone,” she said. “That might be because of the perception that their hands are tied, or it might be because of the educator shortage, but either way teachers, like students, are not getting the currently allowed supports that they’re asking for.”

The state Department of Education also opposes the changes. At the hearing, lobbyist Adosh Unni described resources the agency has made available to schools interested in changing their approach to discipline.  

Matt Shaver, a former teacher who is policy director of the advocacy group EdAllies, urged lawmakers not to return to allowing schools to withhold or delay lunch or recess because of a student’s behavior.

“I took a lot of recess away from kids during my decade in the classroom,” he said. “I used this tool when students didn’t finish their homework or worksheets or weren’t focused in class. My line was, if you’re going to be playing during class time, you’ll do class time during your play time. I thought I was pretty clever and delivering consistent logical consequences that would teach the behaviors I wanted to see for my students. In hindsight, I was wrong.

“This wasn’t an effective tool because the same kids missed recess over and over,” he continued. “Instead of keeping a kid inside for a punishment, my time with them would have been much better spent on the playground building that relationship that would have made it more likely for them to respect and listen to me as their teacher.”

 attended an event last November where the nonprofit New Yorkers United for Child Care launched a  for expanding care: City Comptroller Brad Lander, State Sen. Jessica Ramos, State Sen. Zellnor Myrie and State Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani. Ramos has put the issue  of her mayoral run. 

Two other candidates have also embraced the issue. Former New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer has  to cap the cost of child care for the city’s families, and in a previous run for mayor he  universal child care. Michael Blake, a former aide to President Barack Obama, has also  he supports it. 

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who recently entered the race, is  to make the city’s 3-K program fully universal; as governor, he  state funding for New York City’s groundbreaking universal pre-K program and  a task force on child care affordability before he resigned in the wake of multiple sexual harassment allegations.

“There’s a strong argument that New Yorkers United for Child Care has already won the New York City mayor’s race,” Lander said. 

New Yorkers United for Child Care got its start about a year ago. Rebecca Bailin, its executive director, realized there was no group dedicated to the single issue of child care. “It felt really insane that we didn’t have a constituent base ready to build power around this very critical issue,” she said. 

The group had its work cut out for it. Instead of working toward creating new early education programs, it found itself immediately leading the opposition to Mayor Eric Adams’s  to what was supposed to be a universal 3-K program. While the program is still not universal — despite Adams’s promise that every family would get a seat who wanted one this year, plenty  being waitlisted — the mayor last year  some of the funding he threatened to cut.

A Plan for Universal Child Care

Now New Yorkers United for Child Care is going on the offense with its to achieve free care for all children at a cost of $12.7 billion a year, or 6 percent of the state’s current budget, once the plan is fully implemented. The plan would launch in the city and spread across the state, using state funding, perhaps through taxes on capital gains, corporations or high-income earners. 

The idea is to create an early childhood education system for children from infancy through age 4 that mirrors the K-12 system. The plan calls for a free, full-day program, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., to accommodate parents’ work schedules. Spaces would be within 15 minutes of families’ homes “because you cannot bus a toddler or a baby,” Bailin said. 

The first year of the plan would be spent ensuring that 3-K and pre-K programs in the city are “truly universal” and expanding them to other areas of the state. Year two would guarantee universal access statewide while growing access for 2-year-olds, and then later years would be spent on younger ages. 

Bailin isn’t waiting for lawmakers to come around. In January, her organization brought advocates, parents and elected officials to New York City’s city hall  a campaign for free care for New York City 2-year-olds, which it’s calling “2-Care.” They ultimately want to serve 60,000 toddlers at a cost of about $1.3 billion annually. Ramos and Lander both support that campaign, too.

Support from City and State Leaders

Indeed, the push for universal child care has found fertile ground in the current mayoral race. Both Ramos and Lander have children and dealt with the problem firsthand. When Ramos had her first child 13 years ago, she had to put together a “hodgepodge” of child care coverage “and it was just really, stressful to do,” she said. But then when her child was 4 years old she worked in the administration of then-Mayor Bill de Blasio setting up universal pre-K, and both of her sons got to attend. “That was really eye opening,” she said.

So when she was elected to the state Senate, one of the first bills she introduced was  that would create a funding stream to cap families’ child care costs at 7% of their income and pay providers at least $45,000 a year. That legislation has not yet passed. She’s also worked on expanding eligibility for child care subsidies so they are now available to families earning 400% of the federal poverty line, or $128,600 for a family of four. The state has  spending on child care over the past four years, although it still only devotes less than half a percent of its budget to it.

“My campaign proposal is really building off of, or taking from, my state plan to implement a city system,” she said. If elected mayor, she’s  she would streamline the bureaucracy of the existing system, open more facilities, invest in providers, and, ultimately, achieve universal child care. As with Bailin’s plan, she would start by “really mak[ing] 3-K work,” and then move down to create a program for 2-year-olds and “get as close to newborns as possible.” She would start “on day one.”

Lander said enacting universal child care would be one of his top three priorities if elected. His other priorities are tackling homelessness and building affordable housing, but he said those initiatives would take a long time to come to fruition. Universal child care, on the other hand, “is the single biggest thing we could do to have a near-term impact on the affordability crisis that is facing New York City’s families.”

Lander’s first step would be to ensure the existing 3-K program is universal, something he says can be done in his first year with existing city funding. Then he would work with New Yorkers United for Child Care to expand universal, free care to age 2 and, eventually, all the way to 6 weeks old. 

“If you want to have a functioning democracy, if you believe in any meaningful way that every kid ought to have as close to equal opportunity to thrive as you can provide, and if you want a city where you can have a thriving economy with families working, publicly provided early childhood education is a linchpin,” Lander said in an interview. 

New York City can’t create universal child care on its own; both Ramos and Lander acknowledged funding will have to come from the state government. Bailin agrees, though believes it will eventually pay for itself as universal child care has been  to do in Quebec, Canada. 

There are signs of interest in Albany. State Senate Majority Leader Andrew Stewart-Cousins  “universal, affordable child care” in 2022. In December, Sen. Samra Brouk and Assemblymember Michaelle Solages published  also calling for free, full-day universal child care, and Sen. Andrew Gounardes  in his priorities for 2025.

In her state of the state address this year, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul  for putting the state “on a pathway toward universal child care.” So far, nothing concrete has passed, “but before they weren’t saying anything,” Bailin noted. 

If a candidate who supports universal child care wins, Bailin said parents like those in her group will have to make it clear this is a priority. “This is what their constituents are clamoring for and demanding,” she said. “It’s our job to make sure that our elected officials are hearing from them.” 

Before COVID-19, one in five young people in their lives, and since 2020, almost half of high school youth reported having , a decline by half from a decade earlier. Hau calls this “relational scarcity” and concludes that while kids need strong early relationships to thrive, those same relationships are among the single strongest predictors of a child’s later success and ability to overcome adversity. 

Hau’s new book, “Love to Learn: The Transformational Power of Care and Connection in Early Education,” tackles this crisis head on, with all indicators pointing toward the power of early care. She includes her own personal story: A psychological test at age 3 concluded that Hau had “low academic aptitude.” Her parents, undeterred, enrolled her in a high quality public preschool in France with strong teachers, where she formed attachments and thrived. “I believe that this moment of benefiting from high quality early education made a huge impact. Which is why I have focused on early childhood education as a huge part of my academic life,” she says in an interview with journalist Rebecca Gale.

The conversation below is edited for length and clarity. 

Your book talks about the need for children to have a robust network of relationships, including with people they are not related to, and how this has changed in recent generations. How can parents and families make a shift going forward?

Isabelle Hau: This is why I wrote this book because I am very worried about where we are regarding “relationships circles” around children. We have a huge body of science that says relationships matter for children in life. However, children are more and more isolated, and while there’s more discussion on loneliness and isolation among adults, I believe that the problem starts in the early years. 

We have children in very small family units: The number of families with only one child over the past 30 years. And it’s intergenerational; have at least one grandkid who lives more than 200 miles away. And only 3% of children with someone above age 65 that is not their direct grandparent. 

There is lots of really on the benefits of [intergenerational relationships]for the child and for the elderly person, and also benefits for the middle generation, the parents. 

How can parents grow their relationship circles?

That starts as a family unit, increasing the number of relationships and making sure the relationships within the family unit are very strong. Turn family time into relational time. I know it’s not always possible for every family, but ideally dinner time is together without any technology interruption or devices at the table. 

To expand the circles of relationships, there are a few things that families can do. Ensure that kids play — focusing on free play, and prioritizing relationships with little ones and families. It sounds also really obvious but with kids who are more and more scheduled, there is less and less time to make those friendships and enjoy free play. Even playdates have become more and more structured these days. 

You have many examples about how our COVID-era policies had detrimental effects on our youngest learners. Can you talk more about why that is, and what else we can do to overcome it?

There is a reason one of the greatest punishments in incarcerated systems is to have people in solitary confinement, because it is one of the greatest human tortures. 

It had a huge impact [during COVID] to be confined at home with minimal interaction. ECE educators are still observing a number of issues at this point. Kids are having more and more issues socializing with others. 

Parents were expressing some concern for older kids too. I was looking at that shows more than 20% of children at this point don’t have a friend. This was for any child, ages 6-12, as expressed by parents. 

And these concerns have seen a shift since COVID?

The challenges we’re seeing today didn’t start with COVID. Even before the pandemic, children were playing less and spending more time on technology — reflecting broader societal trends that predated COVID. However, the pandemic amplified these concerns significantly.

One deeply troubling data point comes from during the pandemic. She studied a cohort of mothers giving birth at the onset of COVID-19 in New York City and tracked the emotional connections between mothers and their babies. Alarmingly, only 20% of these children had a strong emotional connection with their mothers; 80% did not. Even more concerning is that, before the pandemic, only 40% of mothers with young children had a strong emotional connection; 60% did not. Think about that – 60% was already a crisis, and the pandemic made it so much worse.

You focus on the need for relational learning at school, and how not enough attention is given to teaching this. Do you see that shifting, and what do you think progress in this area would look like?

There are many promising experiments happening in early childhood settings, but I would love to see more schools intentionally focus on the importance of relationships. Most teachers enter the profession because they are deeply relational and passionate about building meaningful connections with their students. Yet our current systems often fail to prioritize relationships. For example, early childhood educators are often moved between classrooms early in their careers, disrupting the relationships they strive to build. They often leave the profession as a result. There are concrete steps we can take, such as dedicating more time to free play/recess, or guided play during class, setting relational goals, and starting each day with connection circles. These small but powerful changes can make a big difference in fostering meaningful relationships in early education.

Your chapter on robotic child care sounded like something out of a science fiction movie. How can we approach AI so that we aren’t relying on robots to care for kids but we are still open to learning about ways technology can make things easier?

The option of AI is everywhere; there is extremely rapid adoption. The impact on relationships and learning is really unclear on this point. We want to see technology and AI augment human relationships and not replace them.

Here is where I am concerned — what I call ‘junk tech’ is technology that is not good for us, not relational in nature. We should minimize that, like we do with junk food. We can have a little bit but not too much. But here is a problem I see as a parent and an educator: It is very difficult for any of us to find what is good or not good from a tech perspective. 

If you are looking at or trying to download an app for your child, it is very difficult to know whether it is relational or not. You have tools like that are trying to help, but I would like to see, like in food, that if you buy a bag of chips you can see the nutritional benefits. It doesn’t mean it will change your behavior, but at least you will have information. But for tech tools we don’t have that right now. It is an area I would love to see more progress being made. 

Downstairs, six children are snacking on pretzels and apple slices. Chase explains that they spend a lot of time outside, adding that her curriculum is nature-based and the woods and backyard pond make it ideal for the kids to explore. 

For Chase, working in early childhood education is her “life’s passion for sure.” She worked as an early childhood educator for 10 years before deciding to open her own program in 2015. Chase recalls that she was working 50 to 60 hours a week when she first started, which drained her, so in 2016 she hired a staff member to help. 

Her program, which serves six children ages 3 to 5 has been successful over the years. Because the , she always has a waiting list, rarely has vacancies and doesn’t have to advertise. That’s why in 2024, she decided to expand her business from a registered family child care program with one classroom to a licensed facility with two. This shift would allow her to serve 12 children full time — double the number she can serve as a registered family child care provider. The process, which she kicked off this January, will take well over a year.

Chase explains her plans for the expansion. She’ll add a new room on the first floor, which will serve as a second classroom for infants and toddlers and the cubbies will move indoors. And to transition from a “registered” child care provider to a “licensed” one, she’s required to meet a number of complicated compliance regulations. She has to upgrade her septic wastewater system which will cost $55,000; deepen her well for more water storage capacity, which will cost $14,000; spend another $112,000 to expand the space; and pay an additional $6,500 to fence in the playground. 

Chase is adamant that this investment only makes financial sense because of , Vermont’s landmark bill to bring near-universal child care to the state. The bill, which passed in 2023, aimed to increase access to high-quality child care and stabilize the early care and education workforce, including supporting family child care programs. Act 76 brought changes to various areas of child care and early childhood education, including significant updates to the , which provides subsidy payments to providers for children from eligible families. Under CCFAP, subsidy payments vary by income and the number of children that families have in child care, but providers now get a higher rate per child than what they typically charge. Since most of the families Chase serves qualify for CCFAP, this change nearly doubles the amount of money she brings in each week for each child.

There are more than  in Vermont — including family child care and center-based care providers — who could be impacted by the changes to CCFAP. One of them, Sherry Boudro, has been caring for children in the basement of her home in Windsor, Vermont for more than 30 years. Her house lends itself well to running a family child care program. It has a separate entrance to the children’s space, though it’s still connected to her main house by an internal staircase. Two fluorescent sensory swings hang from the ceiling, and the room is brightly painted and lined with bookshelves. 

“Before Act 76 I was living paycheck to paycheck,” explains Boudro. Now, she has more than doubled her income. Boudro was charging families $150 per child per week; now she receives $364 per child per week — a portion of which is paid for by the state depending on each family’s financial assistance agreement. Windsor “doesn’t have a lot of high-paying jobs,” she explains, so she couldn’t charge families more money, even though she was working all the time and barely breaking even. The extra income she receives now is going toward her retirement. “I’m 60 years old and I have no retirement savings,” she says. She’s also planning to make some long-awaited repairs to the space, replacing carpets and fixing the ceiling tiles, which droop down.

Act 76 Benefits Most — But Not All — Providers

Act 76 is the “opportunity and social change of our lifetime,” says Aly Richards, CEO of Let’s Grow Kids — the advocacy organization which spearheaded the bill’s passage. Richards, who has become the state’s chief champion of the bill and de-facto expert on how to bring a near-universal child care program to a state, outlines the success of Act 76 thus far. In its first year, the legislation created 1,000 new child care slots, nearly 50 new family child care programs, over 40 child care centers and 220 new early educator jobs. And in 2024, for the first time since 2018, more child care programs opened in the state than closed.

While ACT 76 has been a game changer for many child care providers in the state, not all have received the benefits. Tammie Hazlett, for example, runs a family child care in Vermont near the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. Most of the families she serves work have well-paying jobs at the medical center and do not qualify for subsidies, so she isn’t able to collect the higher true-cost-of-care rates. Another provider, Apryl Blake, serves two children who come from a neighboring town in New Hampshire, so they aren’t eligible, and she hasn’t asked the rest of her families to apply. “I have a problem asking them for their financial information. Not my business,” she explains.

Chase says all but one of the families she serves receives a subsidy, and the one family that doesn’t feels excluded and resentful of the process. The mother is a teacher and the father works in the tech industry. They don’t consider themselves to be well-off and they say the cost of child care is still a major expense. 

For some longtime providers like Merry Ann Gilbert and Laura Butler, these changes may be coming too late. Gilbert is 59, and though her practice is winding down, she still takes care of five kids a week at her home in Milton, Vermont. She is looking to retire and spend more time with her four grandchildren but Act 76 is motivating her to stay another year or two to make additional money. 

Butler, 66, who has been a family child care provider for 33 years, is also missing out — the families she serves don’t qualify for subsidies because their incomes are too high. Vermont’s support for child care has assisted Butler in other ways though, including  she took on when she got a master’s degree. 

With a 6-month-old baby sleeping in her arms, a toddler resting on a nearby couch and another toddler playing in her living room, Butler shares that she is retiring in June and moving to South Carolina with her husband so they can be closer to her family. She says she has given the families in her program notice, encouraging them to seek out other child care options.

For years, Butler worked as an advocate in the effort to professionalize the work of child care providers — something that Vermont may be the first state to do. “When I would tell people I watched children, they’d say ‘oh you’re a babysitter,’” she says; her work wasn’t recognized as a profession, but that may soon change. In late 2023 the Vermont Association for the Education of Young Children submitted an application to the state’s Office of Professional Regulation to make “early childhood education” a recognized profession; a  has been sent to the state Legislature for review in anticipation of introducing legislation, but Butler won’t be working in the field when it comes to fruition.

Butler has no resentment though.  She says she is ready for her next chapter and the warmer weather. “The next generation of providers will get the benefit,” she says. “I am satisfied that I worked hard for them.”

More than half a dozen child care centers that serve low-income families through the federal Head Start program have been waiting for more than a week to be repaid for expenses they’ve already incurred for payroll, supplies and food for the children in their care.

Head Start and Early Head Start are federally funded programs that provide early education and child care to children from low-income families. Wisconsin has 39 Head Start child care providers serving 16,000 children across the state and employing about 4,500 staff, said Jenny Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association.

“The chaos and uncertainty have been deeply earth-shattering,” Mauer told the Wisconsin Examiner on Tuesday.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

Mauer said providers across the state who receive federal grant payments for Head Start have seen delays in receiving their payments. She has been in touch with all 39 and, as of Tuesday, there were seven providers serving about 3,000 children that haven’t been paid by the federal government for at least a week, she said.

“This is going to get really serious if this doesn’t get resolved soon,” Mauer said. “We’re not getting much in the way of answers. We’re not getting good explanations about anything. It’s incredibly frustrating.”

The Head Start payments stopped at the same time that a Trump administration memo announced a week ago that a broad array of federal grant and loan payments would be suspended. Two federal judges have ordered the White House to halt the suspension in payments, but there have been widespread reports of funds that have still not been released.

“People think the freeze is over,” said Rep. Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie), whose district includes a child care provider affected and who posted a decrying the federal action. “Yet these [federal] agencies are not providing the funds.”

The National Head Start Association, a membership organization for Head Start child care providers, has reported similar problems across the country.

“We’re definitely not alone, that’s for sure,” Mauer said.

Reach Dane, a Madison child care agency that provides child care for about 1,000 children in Dane and Green counties, is waiting on $600,000 that the nonprofit is due from Head Start, said Jen Bailey, Reach Dane’s executive director. The organization had to tap into its bank line of credit after payments failed to come through in the last week.

The funds are needed to make payroll for Reach Dane’s staff of 250, including child care teachers, people in food service and bus drivers who pick up and drop off children in the program.

“We’re kind of flying blind in a chaos storm, trying to figure out what is happening and why,” said Bailey, who is also president of the Wisconsin Head Start Association board.

Federal payments to Head Start programs are reimbursements for expenses providers have already incurred. Providers are accustomed to logging into a federal portal, submitting the expense information and receiving a reimbursement in about 24 hours.

Reach Dane typically submits its requests for payment once a week or so, Bailey said. A week ago Monday, Reach Dane was unable to log in to the portal at all, however.

Late Tuesday, Jan. 28, the portal was once again accessible, and Reach Dane submitted a payment request. A second payment request was submitted on Friday, Jan. 31.

“We have not received either of those,” Bailey said Tuesday. “As of right now both still show as pending in the system.”

In addition to serving Head Start children through its own child care centers, Reach Dane also works with private child care providers who enroll children from low-income families.

One private partner is The Playing Field, a nonprofit that operates two child care centers in Madison, one of them on the city’s West Side where the enrollment includes Head Start children. Reach Dane pays The Playing Field monthly to cover its Head Start kids.

Participating in Head Start is part of The Playing Field’s mission, said Abbi Kruse, who founded The Playing Field a decade ago with the goal of creating “an early childhood education program that any family would choose for their child.” From the start the organization’s model was to enroll children “from really different socio-economic and racial backgrounds,” she said, overcoming segregation in all its forms.

At the West Side location, enrollment is about one-third children on scholarship, one-third children whose parents can afford the full cost, and one-third who are covered under Head Start or Early Head Start. “Without that funding, they could not attend our program,” Kruse said. “Without that funding, we definitely could not sustain our model.”

Kruse said that Reach Dane sends a Head Start payment once a month to The Playing Field, which received the February payment on Monday. But if Reach Dane can’t resume receiving its federal funds, “obviously that’s not sustainable for them to continue doing that,” she said.

Some of the children served by her organization are from families living in shelters, sleeping in cars or hotels for the unhoused, for example, Kruse said. They may rely on The Playing Field not just for child care but for meals and other support, such as parenting classes.

“There’s a lot of support for families in our model, and to rip that away from people is just cruel,” Kruse said.

Mauer said that providers unable to collect the federal funds they’re due are scrambling to meet the shortfall.

The federal government requires that recipients must disburse the money they get within three days after collecting it. “They’re not sitting on a set of federal reserves to pay people,” Mauer said. “This is money for service already rendered.”

Providers who are on the hook for funds “are doing everything they can to keep their doors open,” she said. “They’re talking to creditors, they’ve opened up lines of credit, they’re talking to community partners and moving things around.”

If Head Start providers don’t survive, the impact on employers could be severe.

“The majority of folks that come to Head Start are working families,” Mauer said. Without child care, “that would mean those parents would have to make tough choices. It’s a terrible situation.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

It’s increasingly clear that universal pre-K is coming. It probably won’t arrive in 2015. It might not be for a few more years. But this longtime progressive dream is going to happen — you can take that to the bank.

If any of you happen to be longtime readers who did, in fact, take my optimism to the bank, I’m sorry. Here in 2024, universal pre-K remains a distant dream — the National Institute for Early Education Research reports that just 35% of all 4 year olds were enrolled in public programs. U.S. pre-K enrollment actually dropped from to . 

I was hardly . Pre-K had relatively good political prospects. Washington, D.C.’s universal pre-K system — where I already had one child enrolled (and would eventually have three) — was about three years into full implementation, wasn’t far behind, and New York City’s and expansions were imminent. It wasn’t just the big blue cities getting in on the act! States like , and were investing in large pre-K programs. Almost every year, President Obama would introduce universal pre-K proposals — and by 2014, they were . 

Pre-K also benefited from solid research backing — children’s brains have particularly high levels of neuroplasticity in the early years, meaning that their developmental trajectories are than they will be in later years. Early education programs that expose young children to high-quality learning environments full of rich language and engaging activities can make the most of this moment and help advance children’s development.

A has found that early education investments help kids prepare for kindergarten; develop stronger academic, social, and linguistic abilities; and get better long-term life outcomes. Further, these impacts save the public money by helping schools work more efficiently — for instance, pre-K programs can . In 2022, researchers even found that the appeared to have because of the program: higher high school graduation rates, greater college enrollment rates, reduced criminal behavior and the like. 

Given our growing about how to make it , it’s especially relevant to note that well-funded universal pre-K programs can help parents . New research has corroborated these findings, showing that . Shoot, even at a macroeconomic level, pre-K’s a good policy bet — it’s overall more efficient and cheaper to have kids in quality early learning classrooms with student-teacher ratios around 8:1 than it is to have kids at home with one parent and only a sibling or two. 

Not coincidentally, other developed countries have already devoted considerable resources to a suite of . 

Nonetheless, like , , renaming Twitter as X,  universal pre-K hasn’t taken off. There are bright spots: is pushing towards universal coverage, ���𲹳ٳٱ���’s pre-K program is , and the Biden administration, while it still could, large federal early education investments. But on balance, a decade after my misbegotten prediction, pre-K’s political prospects are somewhat less rosy. has been uneven, and even New York City’s established pre-K program is . 

Washington, D.C.’s pre-K program that many — — believed was uniquely helpful for raising its quality. Some cities, like , are struggling with pre-K expansion, while pre-K class sizes are going up . Tennessee’s pre-K classrooms have been under increased scrutiny after of their effectiveness. 

What happened? Why hasn’t policy tracked the evidence that compelled so many of us a decade ago?

Let’s not overthink this. The main problem is politics. During the campaign, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris her party’s support for large national early education investments. If she’d won and Democrats had enough votes in Congress, universal pre-K would already be rolling out. This could still be true if Michigan’s Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer, were to run and win the White House in 2028. 

National conservative leadership on pre-K has largely evaporated. Republicans who supported universal pre-K — like — have been more or less pushed out of the party. The campaign of president-elect Donald Trump didn’t take a clear position on any early education investments — let alone pre-K — but as president, , the federal government’s largest investment in early learning for 4 year olds. Furthermore, writing in the Heritage Foundation’s much-discussed “,” usually referred to as “Project 2025,” Trump’s conservative allies have called for Head Start to be defunded.

Back in 2015, it was possible to look forward and see a world where local, state and federal policymakers across the political spectrum would turn to universal pre-K as 1) a powerful intervention for improving kids’ linguistic, social and academic development; 2) a way to ease financial pressures for families and 3) a way to use public education dollars more efficiently. While it’s always a fool’s errand to trust strong data to deliver political progress, universal pre-K seemed like such a good fit for so many challenges facing U.S. public education — and American families. 

Obviously I was wrong. Wiser heads knew it right away. Soon after I wrote that TPM column, I met the late early education expert Ruby Takanishi for coffee. She pulled out a printed copy of my piece, plopped it on the table, and told me that I was not the first progressive to prophesy a major pre-K expansion just around the corner. 

“I hope you’re right,” she said with a wry smile, “but I bet you won’t be the last.” 

Founded by the Bezos Family Foundation in 2018, Early Learning Nation has evolved into an acclaimed independent magazine dedicated to coverage of the news, policies and research shaping early learners, their families and the broader child care system. 

“The key issues affecting America’s K-12 students begin well before kindergarten and continue well beyond high school graduation,” said Steve Snyder, CEO of ����Ӱ��. “Our partnership with Early Learning Nation underscores ����Ӱ��’s commitment in broadening our editorial priorities and deepening our coverage of equity, solutions and progress as we follow children from cradle to career.” 

����Ӱ�� has hired Marisa Busch to oversee integration of Early Learning Nation and the expansion of the site’s broader mission. Busch previously served as an Editorial Director at EdSurge, where she played a key role in launching the organization’s early childhood coverage. She brings more than 20 years of education experience to ����Ӱ��’s national newsroom, both between education outlets and a decade spent in classrooms as an educator and instructional coach serving students from early childhood through middle grades.

Busch will partner closely with Chief Creative Officer Emmeline Zhao and Editor in Chief Nicole Ridgway, who joined ����Ӱ�� this summer after a lengthy tenure at CNN Business, to expand Early Learning Nation’s brand and footprint. 

“As the new home of Early Learning Nation, ����Ӱ�� is well-positioned to expand awareness about the challenges and success in early learning and the science of the developing brain,” said Bezos Family Foundation President John Deasy. “We look forward to following their coverage about the factors affecting young learners, their families, and their communities and seeing how the discourse is extended to a wider demographic of readers.” 

Over the past year, ����Ӱ�� has launched and expanded an array of special initiatives focused on students, families and educators.

In August, ����Ӱ�� introduced its newest national newsletter, The Catch-Up, offering rolling updates on the state of learning losses after the pandemic as well as breakthrough efforts to catch students up specifically in the arenas of math and reading. (Sign up here)

The publisher also recently scaled its partnership with the University of Southern California and the Annenberg School of Journalism, where a new cohort of undergraduate and graduate students are being trained by 74 journalists to cover students and education issues through the lens of LAUSD, the nation’s second-largest school district. That program has produced a wide-ranging series of impactful features that have been published at both ����Ӱ�� and LA School Report. Many have also been syndicated by national and local partners, including the LA Daily News. 

In recent semesters, ����Ӱ�� has ramped up its coverage of America’s most innovative high schools and how the K-12 system is evolving to better prepare today’s teenagers for the future workforce. Across multiple road trips, feature articles and documentaries, the newsroom has helped spotlight campuses, educators and communities that are rethinking the conventional high school experience.

Since launching in 2015, ����Ӱ�� has been widely recognized for its expanding slate of education coverage. Its work has been cited thousands of times by outlets across the industry; in 2023 alone, ����Ӱ�� was credited or co-published by nearly 400 outlets. The organization has also won multiple awards from the Online News Association, Institute for Nonprofit News and the Education Writers Association. 

Policy experts note that public opinion about a particular topic is deeply shaped by at the time. These frameworks are frequently contested through implicit and explicit messages that go out through media, as well as topical debates in the political arena. The political scientist Deborah Stone puts it this way: “Ideas are at the center of all political conflict. Policymaking, in turn, is a constant struggle over the criteria for classification; the boundaries of categories, and the definition of ideals that guide the way people behave.”

A classic example . When nuclear power was primarily seen as a new source of cheap energy, it drew a great deal of support. When it became seen as an environmental danger — influenced by real-life accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as well as fictional media portrayals — public support cratered. Today, some environmentalists are trying to intentionally insert a third frame whereby nuclear power is seen as in reducing greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change; they face an uphill battle.

Or take a question closer to child care’s wheelhouse: public schools. While schools inarguably serve a child care function (sorry, ), that is not generally seen as their primary purpose. Instead, schools are defined by their educational impact. Whether that education is at successful careers, civic engagement, personal self-actualization or something else certainly remains contested, but the overarching frame of schools = education is set.

When it comes to child care, America seems to be experiencing what psychologist William James described as the first moments of an infant’s life: a “blooming, buzzing confusion.” Particularly in an era when child care is finally getting widespread attention instead of being relegated to a component of welfare, we have yet to answer the questions: what is child care and who is it for? In many cases, we have yet to even ask those questions.

Is child care primarily a work support for parents? Is it child development that helps kids with early learning and growth? Is it a way to reduce family stress and increase family functioning? Is it social infrastructure that connects parents, a la libraries and parks? Is it intended to promote gender equity? Who counts as a valid child care provider? Is the goal to have a minimum level of adequate child care that keeps costs low or to have abundant, first-rate child care settings with well-compensated educators? Heck, we can’t even agree on definitions: is child care policy about ages birth to 5? Birth to 8? Birth to 13? Birth to 18?

You’re probably thinking that child care is not just one thing, and that much of the above list is not mutually exclusive. You’d of course be correct. But ‘not just one thing’ doesn’t obviate the need, again, for a primary frame. Right now, we’re not even trying to hash out what that primary frame is, and so we often end up talking past one another.

Comments regarding child care made by Vance and Kamala Harris in recent months illustrate this societal confusion.

In an August Face the Nation , Vance responded to questions about his opposition to  universal child care proposals: “what I’ve opposed is one model of child care. We, of course, want to give everybody access to child care. But look, in my family, I grew up in a poor family where the child care was my grandparents, and a lot of these child care proposals do nothing for grandparents. If you look at some of these proposals, they do nothing for stay-at-home moms or stay-at-home dads. I want us to have a child care policy that’s good for all families, not just a particular model of family, and that’s what I’ve said.”

Harris, meanwhile, the following during an appearance before the National Association of Black Journalists: “the state of affairs in our country that working people often have to decide to either be able to work or be able to afford childcare … they can’t afford childcare and actually do the work that they want to do because it’s too expensive, and it doesn’t actually level out in terms of the expense versus the income. My plan is that no family — no working family should pay more than 7 percent of their income in childcare, because I know that when you talk about the return on that investment, allowing people to work, allowing people to pursue their dreams in terms of how they want to work, where they want to work, benefits us all. It strengthens the entire economy.”

As you can see, these are not two sides of a coin. This isn’t, ‘I think public schools should get more money, you think we should universalize school vouchers’ or ‘I think there should be a single-payer health care system, you think we should deregulate health care and let the market work it out’. This is one side emphasizing child care as a form of broad-based family support and one side emphasizing child care as a way to strengthen parents’ preferred attachment to the labor force. (I do want to emphasize that actions speak louder than words: Vance skipped a Senate vote where his GOP colleagues a bipartisan House-passed expansion of the Child Tax Credit, whereas Harris is second-in-command of an administration that proposed , including child care, in American history — one that was, again, blocked by Republicans.)
Partially because of child care’s history, it has been subject to markedly less philosophical scrutiny than other issue areas. Frequently, we hear advocacy groups wanting debate moderators or journalists about their plans for child care. That’s fine as far as it goes (the recent Vice Presidential debate was on care issues) but I think we’d get a lot further if we first asked political candidates: Why do you think child care is important? What is your vision for an ideal child care system? I think we’d get a lot further, in fact, if we first asked ourselves those questions.