Tell Congress - Protect the Child Tax Credit

Extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance are essential measures to protect American families and to prevent the recovery from stalling out. However, not on the backs of poor children! Proposals to restrict eligibility would deny the credit to nearly 5 million children in low-income, tax-paying immigrant families.

The Child Tax Credit’s purpose is to reduce child poverty – in 2010 alone, the CTC kept 1.3 million children out of poverty. Making eligibility changes to this valuable program would take money away from many poor families – thus undermining the CTC’s central purpose of poverty reduction.

Promise the Children joins other national advocacy groups to urge members of Congress to Protect the Child Tax Credit by signing on to a letter.

The letter ….

As organizations that come together to advocate for the needs of low-income and vulnerable populations, we strongly urge you to oppose any restrictions to eligibility for the Child Tax Credit. We believe that extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance is essential to protecting families and our fragile economic recovery. However, asking children in low-income families to bear the burden of paying for this tax package—while refusing to ask millionaires to pay their share—is immoral, unfair, and outrageous.Proposals to restrict access to the Child Tax Credit would affect nearly five million children in low-income, tax-paying families, counteracting the boost to consumers and the economy that the payroll tax cut is meant to produce.

The purpose of the Child Tax Credit, and in particular the refundable portion (called the Additional Child Tax Credit), is to reduce child poverty. The Child Tax Credit kept 1.3 million children out of poverty in 2010. The typical taxpayer harmed by proposals to restrict eligibility for the Child Tax Credit earns $21,240 per year and would experience an 8% increase in their taxes owed, amounting to a loss of $1,800 in the typical family’s income per year. Losing this income will compromise the ability of families to put food on the table or pay for rent or heat. Research has consistently shown that children in food-insecure families are more likely to have health and developmental problems.

It is particularly cruel to target the children of immigrants in these negotiations. Children of immigrants now make up nearly one-quarter of the nation’s child population. In 2010, nearly 30 percent of children with foreign-born parents were poor.Children of immigrants are far more likely to live in food-insecure households and are more likely to suffer from fair or poor health. These children, so many of whom are citizens, are an important part of America’s future. It is profoundly unwise to place so many at risk by denying them the credit designed to prevent or reduce poverty among working families.

In short, our poorest and most vulnerable children should not be a revenue source. Most of the deficit reduction plans put forward over the last two years have explicitly sought to protect the poor.

Sincerely yours,

We urge you to pass a fair tax package and oppose any changes in eligibility for the Child Tax Credit.

Posted by Sue Kirby on 02/01/12  •  Comments 0   •  

Looking for the Good in No Child Left Behind

There are conflicting views on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) bill that authorizes public education. This bill was passed with the support of President George W. Bush and Senator Edward Kennedy in 2001 with a view toward improving public education by 2014, including in our least well-funded schools in very poor communities. No Child Left Behind Act – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Some states passed additional mandates including statewide standardized tests that increased the number tests and levied dire consequences for students who failed. I will not discuss these mandates in this blog, nor will I discuss the recent appeal process instituted by President Obama regarding the 2014 deadline for improving test scores in our public schools. Tracking the NCLB Waiver Process State-by-State.

One view on NCLB is that the taxpayer has a right to know whether or not a certain public school is giving each child the opportunity learn. This view framed NCLB and led to the mandated testing of children in certain grades using national standardized tests. Should the school fail to improve test scores year after year, the state can take over the administration of the school and operate outside union rules and without consideration of parents, school districts, and school boards.

Another view is that NCLB is a failure, in part because the federal government has underfunded the bill. Student preparation for the standardized tests required by the NCLB is inadequately funded. Failure by too many children is unavoidable. Funding is needed to provide tutorial, adequate curricula, and additional training for teachers. So many children face failure through no fault of their own. They may have disabilities of various kinds, or they may learn in different ways, or they may not speak English. The tests are easier for children with certain aptitudes, or for children who have multiple support systems purchased by parents or available in wealthier communities. For more information see Text Here

I believe that the NCLB benchmarks for learning using standardized tests are essential. Principals and teachers must see how they are doing. However, I do not think that a test should be the sole factor in evaluating individual students, teachers or schools. It should be one factor along with such work as student projects, and individual research, written work and class participation. Standardized tests should be used to determine whether a school has what is needed to give students an opportunity to learn, or whether the school must decide on new goals and strategies.

While we cannot define exactly how to create a good learning environment, we can point to schools that have improved. We know that some schools have increased high school graduation rates and improved NCLB test scores from year to year. Without NCLB, these improvements might not have occurred and/or the public might not have noticed.

That is why I have a more positive view of NCLB and President Obama’s effort to improve our children’s opportunity to learn.

Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): North Dakota School …
KIPP: Knowledge Is Power Program | Charter Schools,
Mastery Charter School in Philadelphia

Posted by Becky on 01/30/12  •  Comments 0   •  

Do’s and Don’ts for Nonprofits in an Election Year

January 31st, 2012 at 2:00 – 3:15 pm ET
Register here for this FREE webinar

The Coalition on Human Needs, the Half in Ten Campaign, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the Children’s Leadership Council have partnered to provide a valuable resource to our local partners, members, and allies about what not-for-profit organizations (501C3’s) can do during election years.

During the webinar, the Alliance for Justice will educate you and your organization about what actions are legally permissible during an election year, especially as you plan possible activities and opportunities to lift the anti-poverty frame. You’ll get AFJ’s advice about allowable activities during this election year and practical examples of things your organization can do.

Speakers include:
Abby Levine, Alliance for Justice, the acknowledged experts about nonprofit advocacy law and rules, and
Mary Lou Beaver, Every Child Matters New Hampshire, with examples of C3 nonprofit activity before the recent primary.
Melissa Boteach, Half in Ten Campaign: moderator

Register here: http://bit.ly/zEhFDC

Posted by Sue Kirby on 01/23/12  •  Comments 0   •