From Jillynn Niemeier

Monroe

To the Editor:

Dear Senator Marklein,

I couldn’t help but notice that while you’ve consistently posted your “Marklein Minutes” to Facebook, the one addressing child care is notably absent. Was that omission intentional, or is child care simply not a topic you feel comfortable posting publicly?

It’s also evident from your recent comments and decisions that you have not meaningfully engaged with your constituents who work in the field of early childhood education/child care. If you had, you would understand that our problem isn’t a lack of available slots for children, it’s a lack of qualified educators to care for them. This budget purports to add more slots, but without addressing the workforce crisis, those classrooms will remain closed and more will close as teachers burn out or leave for better paying jobs..

Meanwhile, the policies you supported will continue to drive up the cost of care. Not only this year, but next year as well making it even harder for families to afford the care they need and for providers to stay afloat. Increasing class size for toddlers does not solve the issue; it lowers the quality of care. The so-called “reforms” you mention in your video are not solutions, they are added burdens that will cost providers more, not less. We’re already seeing insurance premiums rise and, in some cases, providers being dropped altogether.

You continue to thank providers for our “service”, yet you refuse to support meaningful investment in the system to provide the service. That kind of praise rings hollow. If you truly believe in the value of what we do, I once again extend an open invitation for you to visit my program and spend a few hours working alongside me. I would welcome the opportunity for you to see firsthand the complexity and commitment required to do this job well.

I also have a  serious question: How can you justify voting to allocate $1 million per year for a single juvenile justice placement, while opposing the bare minimum $480 million needed to continue to stabilize child care in Wisconsin? That funding would have allowed programs to keep rates at their current level, retain staff, and expand access to high-quality care, ultimately reducing the need for costly interventions later in life.

Do you truly believe this is the most fiscally and socially responsible path forward?

I look forward to your honest response.