Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Welcome back to House Education, Tuesday, March 31. Committee is now gonna listen to a presentation of language that was put together by the House Human Services Committee concerning pre k and how it sort of ties into education transformation in the future. The idea is that we would take the language, put it into the bill we are working on after we get a chance to review it, and then it would move forward with the bill, probably returning to human services should we make any changes. Anyway, with that, welcome and thank you very much for being here and look forward to you walking through this language with us. We got 13 pages here. Well, just if you have questions on the surface section, go ahead and we'll take it at that point.

[Speaker 1]: Good Good morning.

[Speaker 2]: Kate McCann, Office of Legislative Counsel.

[Speaker 3]: Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel.

[Speaker 2]: So we have spent the past week with Human Services putting together some pre K language. Let me pull up the document. Here we go. So here is the work of the Human Services Committee. We'll walk you through it and try to answer questions the best we can. First, the committee has added a legislative intent section that says it's the legislative intent of the General Assembly to ensure that pre K education is included as an integral part of Vermont's education system, the right to education is fundamental for the success of Vermont's children in all grades pre K through grade 12. And I know that that is language that Beth had drafted in a

[Speaker 3]: way to make it parallel with language in Title 16. Yes, section one uses that term, right? Education is fundamental for the success. It's used slightly differently as far as more of a holistic success, like lifelong success, but we're using it here regarding education. Okay,

[Speaker 2]: so the next three sections of the bill

[Speaker 0]: I'm actually gonna stop there. Our committee bill that we've been working on does not have a legislative intent section. Generally, legislative intent goes at the top of a bill.

[Speaker 3]: Put it wherever you

[Speaker 0]: put

[Speaker 3]: this onto the bottom of your bill, then it would live within your pre K sections, but it is not a strict requirement to be the first section.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you.

[Speaker 2]: Moving on, section two. The next three sections of this draft all amend the same section title 16, the Pre K section eight twenty nine. You'll see that we have reader assistance because there are different effective dates for each of these sections. And so that will help you track that there are different amendments to the same section at different points in time, if that makes sense. So the first set of changes are effective this July 2026. And we skip right down to the prequalification section. We have some smaller language changes here in the lead ins. Let me go through those with you. So right now, we have language that pursuant to rules jointly developed and overseen by the Secretaries of Education and Human Services and adopted by the state board pursuant to our administrative rules chapter, The agencies jointly shall determine whether a private or public provider of pre K education is qualified for the purposes of this section and shall include a qualified provider in a publicly accessible website. So the changes up here are meant to make this more readable and not substantively different. The substantive change is having this publicly accessible database of pre qualified providers available on the agency's websites. And then we go down to what are the requirements for pre qualification. And as you know, I'm going to bring you to this B first. Actually, I'm going to keep it. I'm going to stay at A. I apologize. So right now there's language that a provider is to employ or contract for the services of at least one teacher who's licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or an early childhood special education under Chapter 51 of this title, including, and this language is new, including through the issuance of provisional emergency licenses. So what this language does is it splits private and public providers. So there would be a different requirement around having the licensed teacher. So with regard to 2A private providers, this in essence maintains the status quo of what is happening for private providers now that they can employ or contract for the services of at least one teacher. And there's new language here, including through the issuance of a provisional and emergency license. And then we drop down to B, and pre kindergarten education provided by a licensed public provider pursuant to this section shall be provided by a teacher who is licensed and endorsed. So it's not just that the teacher is employed or contracted with, it's the teacher who is providing that service. That's the distinction between A and B. And so you'll see when we get to amending this section again, that at some point in the future, all providers, all pre qualified providers will be treated the same in this regard, whether they're private or public pre qualified providers. But this gives a longer ramp of time for the private providers to have a teacher in providing pre K services, if that makes sense.

[Speaker 4]: Is it a public provider? A school?

[Speaker 3]: Yes. School district.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Representative Brady?

[Speaker 1]: So, I'm trying to follow. Why is the issuance of a provisional emergency license being added here?

[Speaker 0]: Can you say that again?

[Speaker 3]: So the language reads, so if we're looking at 2A on page two, line 12, a private provider is required to employ or contract for the services of at least one teacher who is licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or in early childhood special education under Chapter 51 of this title. That's current law. Starting on line 14 and the comma after title, including through the issuance of provisional and emergency licenses is technically new language to this section. My understanding, and this would be something to check-in with your human services peers, is that they wanted a nod to the fact that if someone qualifies for a provisional or emergency license, then they would satisfy that at least one teacher who is licensed and endorsed in early childhood education piece of subdivision 2A. There seems to be some chatter about whether there was at one time a path to provisional emergency licenses for folks working in pre K in a private provider, but maybe that's not the case now. My understanding of what human services is trying to do here is just say, if under all of the applicable rules in the professional educator space, if someone is able to obtain a provisional or emergency license, then they would satisfy that having one teacher licensed piece. And it is a nod, I believe, to the fact that perhaps someone could pursue those types of licenses.

[Speaker 1]: Sorry, I'm probably gonna ask really dumb questions here. So the provisional or emergency license is for a provider in a private pre K setting? Understanding Or it's for someone in both. And then I have other questions about the provisional license process.

[Speaker 3]: So my understanding is that this language was just added as kind of a nod to the field that if you are qualified to pursue those types of licenses, you may pursue them. The public subdivision B, you don't need to say anything about the issuance of provisional emergency licenses because that's already wrapped up in the public school employment process.

[Speaker 5]: Wouldn't that be true of private Yes. So it's redundant. And just trying to point something out, the essence of the language is that it would be the same whether it was in there or not.

[Speaker 3]: I think you should talk to your peers on human services for what their intent was. I don't believe this language is meant to make any substantive changes to who is able to qualify for a provisional or emergency license?

[Speaker 1]: You know, practically speaking, a provisional or emergency license for a pre K provider, like who is overseeing that or responsible for?

[Speaker 3]: It's the professional. I always get this wrong. It's the Standards Board for Professional Educators. So is it AOE? It is a board that AOE provides administrative assistance to, yes. They make all the licensing determinations and they are responsible for the rules where most of the licensing requirements live. I think it's the 5,000 series. And so if someone who is working with a private provider or a public provider qualifies for provisional or emergency license, they would satisfy the requirement in subdivision 2A or B that pre K is either provided by a teacher who's licensed in subdivision B or the private provider has contracted for the services of in subdivision I am not the person who should be speaking to what is required to obtain a provisional or emergency license.

[Speaker 1]: I thought there was something in emergency and provisional licenses that sort of ties that provisional license to fully licensed administrators or somebody in a district. And so there's like a At the K-twelve, if you're hiring somebody on a provisional license for fifth grade math, there's some sort of tie in or connection that I'm actually not sure off the top of my head if it's the principal or the superintendent's license. And so I don't know how that works for a pre K provider that then might be in a private setting.

[Speaker 3]: It may not. I think that my understanding of what this language was trying to do is make it clear that if you otherwise qualify for these types of licenses, you would satisfy the contract for services of at least one teacher, period. Whether the folks out there who want these jobs would qualify is outside of my wheelhouse and would be a question for the standards board or the fields?

[Speaker 2]: While we're looking at sections A and B, is there anything that's important for us to understand in terms of the language difference that we see in A? So private provider shall employ your contract versus B, where we have a requirement that in the public system, the education must be provided by a teacher who is licensed and endorsed. So can you say more about that? That's a significant difference. And right now in current law, the teacher, there's no language that the teacher has to be in the classroom providing the language. That employer contract, that's sort of the limit of their responsibility right now. Whereas this language about having to provide the actual education implies that there is a teacher providing service. And as you will see, as we go on, the goal is that private providers will also be held to that standard at some point in the future, but not 07/01/2026, unless I wish to expect.

[Speaker 4]: Okay, that's helpful, thanks.

[Speaker 0]: I have a very basic question, and that is, right now, a teacher who is licensed to endorse an early childhood education for the provisional license can't be that person? I

[Speaker 3]: honestly don't know how to make it more clear. So I'm taking a beat to think about it. The requirement in current law is that a private provider is required to contract or employer contract for the services of a teacher who is licensed under chapter 51. There are different types of licenses that fall under chapter 51. And so I cannot answer whether a private provider would ever be able to hire someone to meet this requirement who's on a provisional or emergency license, because I don't write the rules or execute the rules for the issuance of provisional or emergency licenses. All of that lives in the standards for its rules. And so I think after this walkthrough, when you have time, we could certainly pull up those rules. But how those rules are interpreted and executed would be a question for the field or the standards board themselves.

[Speaker 2]: Moving. I'm just gonna flag for right now that there's this subdivision three that talks about registered family childcare providers and essentially sort of has a third standard. So a registered family home provider that is not licensed and endorsed in early childhood education, early childhood special education shall receive regular active supervision and training from a teacher. So the proposal that you're seeing here is not to change this in 07/01/2006, but I flag it because there is a proposed change to that language as we move forward in the draft.

[Speaker 3]: I will let you do this piece also. Subsection I is brand new language. It's actually what I was just on the Senate floor for. This is the language that was just approved for third reading in the Senate, an S-two 14, which allows for the NEK choice school district to provide pre K education to eligible pre K students by paying tuition pursuant to this section to one or more pre K programs operated by a public school in New Hampshire that is located in a school district within 25 miles of the Vermont order. The supervisory union shall be responsible for administering enrollment procedures and managing pre K tuition payments pursuant to the section in state board rules. The superintendent may apply for and receive a waiver from the AOE and AHS of any rule provision that is impractical for the NEK Choice School District or the New Hampshire program by demonstrating that a substantially equivalent provision is offered. My understanding is that the any K choice school district provides for their K through 12 education in many instances by tuitioning their kiddos to public schools in New Hampshire. The way the current pre K statute and rules are written and interpreted, it's not practical or possible under our current rules and law to also send pre K students to New Hampshire for pre K that would be publicly funded pursuant to Section eight twenty nine, mainly because of the requirements for pre qualified providers being tied to Vermont law, Vermont teaching license, Vermont early learning standards, etcetera. So this language was developed by AOE, DCF, and the school district in question and brought to the Senate Education Committee and they adopted that language. And that's what's traveling in S-two 14. And I took it out of S-two 14 and plunked it here at the direction of your human services committee. And so students in the NEK Choice School District could access pre K in a public school in New Hampshire that's located within 25 miles of the Vermont border, and they would get the same funding that's allowed under Section eight twenty nine for in state pre K. And if there needed to be some sort of waiver, that process would be worked out between the district or the New Hampshire program and the regulatory bodies here in Vermont. And there would be a requirement that there is some sort of demonstration of a substantially equivalent provision offered in New Hampshire. Like what is the New Hampshire Early Learning Standards? What are the New Hampshire teacher licensing requirements, etcetera? And so this is very specific to just this one school district.

[Speaker 2]: Okay, we're moving on to section three. To remind you where we are, this is the second time we're amending Section eight twenty nine and have this reader heading that says effective 07/01/2033. It's a little bit misleading because it's effective 07/01/2033 if the contingency that you created in the Advil last year has been met.

[Speaker 1]: Which one?

[Speaker 2]: Can you spell that more specifically? This

[Speaker 3]: section is going So the section we're going to go through is the section four, is the big change. Yes. So Section four is the change to the prepay program, the entire statute. And those programmatic changes are not going to take effect until the contingencies from Act 73 for the foundation formula to take effect. That's 2028, that's envisioned now. Section three is only going to take effect if section four takes effect, because section three will effectively be amending section four. So section three is also only going to take effect on a different timeline if the contingencies for the foundation form are met. Section three is the runway, right?

[Speaker 2]: So we're looking at the same subsection C again, which is where we have prequalification. And we're looking at the teacher licensure piece again, remember when we last looked at it, we had sort of almost three categories. Here, we're down to one category. Oh, yeah, one category. So we're striking through the language about private providers being able to employ our contract for services. In subsection B, we're striking through language specific to public providers, meaning that this would apply to public and private providers. So pre K education shall be provided by a teacher who is licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or early childhood special education. Similarly, we're striking through this subdivision three specific to registered family childcare homes. And this is the language about having active supervision and training from a teacher that's removed, Meaning that this would be the standard for all private and public pre qualified pre K providers, even if they're registered.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, I'm sorry. That's okay. It's okay.

[Speaker 6]: Just to clarify, this is stating that on 07/01/2023, should everything, all the stars align, private print aid providers will now have to have

[Speaker 4]: a

[Speaker 6]: licensed teacher providing it. To me, that seems to be a problem in rural communities where we don't have a lot of those licensed teachers, have a lot of teachers unprofessionals in emergencies. Did they contemplate how this would impact rural communities?

[Speaker 2]: This was a discussion. Accessibility and availability of providers was a conversation that they had upstairs. I would say that if you have specific questions that it would be better to ask the members of the House Human Services Committee about how they finally reach this conclusion.

[Speaker 6]: I can say that brings quite a bit of concern for me in rural areas.

[Speaker 3]: I will just add that licensed under Chapter 51 includes provisional and emergency licenses.

[Speaker 6]: Correct. But right now, we have a lot of teachers on provisional emergency licenses. And I wonder how much more strain on the system this will create.

[Speaker 2]: I don't think this exactly answers your question, but to keep in mind, as we continue to go through the bill, there was an interim report that was added that asked for information from AOE and DCF to come back to the general assembly a couple of years before this takes effect to provide an assessment of where the field is in terms of having enough staffing for this provision. So I hear that it doesn't fully answer your question, but

[Speaker 3]: it is part of the language we'll be looking at.

[Speaker 0]: Just remind us, this is for the ten hours a week of pre K, not the whole day.

[Speaker 6]: But if there are some districts like mine that have full time per case, right, and there are some in private providers who might provide full day pre K, so that would only apply to ten of their hours a week, or that would apply to all of

[Speaker 0]: their hours? This is only in the private sector, And what they're saying is that for the ten hours a week that they provide pre K as defined law, it has to be provided by the licensed teacher. Beyond that, everything else is sponsored or childcare rules. Interesting.

[Speaker 2]: Scroll down, section four, this is the third time that this bill amends eight twenty nine effective upon the contingency of the foundation formula. Sure. I'm gonna let you take over. Sure. Okay.

[Speaker 3]: So this is the full section eight twenty nine amendment. So the first subsection here is subsection A definitions, and there are changes to the definitions. So pre pay child, just going to go over, I'm not going read what's current law, I'm going to go right into what the amendment is. So pre K child means a child who, as the date established by the district of residence for kindergarten eligibility, is three or four years of age, or is five years of age but is not yet eligible for enrollment in kindergarten. Provided, however, that if a school district in consultation with a parent or guardian determines that a child who is five years of age who is eligible for enrollment in kindergarten is not yet developmentally ready for enrollment, such child shall be eligible for pre kindergarten education funded pursuant to this. So for this section, pre K child, and you'll see in the definition of pre kindergarten education, there was a substantive change that is really helpful to put in perspective when we're talking about pre K education. The eligible children for funding pursuant to this section are three, four or five, as long as the five year old is not yet eligible for enrollment in kindergarten. Or if the school district and the parents decide, even though the child is eligible, they're not yet ready for kindergarten, they would still be eligible for pre K funding under this section. So just to clarify, from looking at the previous language, was three years old, four years old, five years old, not involved. Correct. Is

[Speaker 4]: So, you could be eligible but not developmental, you're ready to make that decision and would be eligible for pre kindergarten. Correct. Thank you.

[Speaker 3]: So the change to the definition of pre kindergarten education for this section, we're adding the phrase means services that are publicly funded pursuant to this section. So while we're talking about pre K education in section eight twenty nine, and frankly, in this entire piece of language that has come over to you, we're just talking about publicly funded pre K.

[Speaker 1]: So we're just talking about the ten hours?

[Speaker 3]: As this language contemplates it, yes.

[Speaker 1]: I might be getting ahead of myself then, but then you might have, we have some school districts that are offering full time or more than ten hours that is publicly funded. But if you're in a private setting, it's only the ten hours that are paid.

[Speaker 3]: Right. So the way pre K education is funded now under our current financing system is pre K costs, whether it's tuition to a public provider or in district run programs. Those costs are wrapped up in school district budgets. So school districts can decide if they run or they operate a pre K program. They can decide we're going to operate it at cost of the ten hours and wrap that up into their school budget, or they can decide that they are going to also offer the same school day as the K through two or whatever. And the costs that are beyond the ten hours are wrapped up in the school budget. The ten hours are also wrapped up in the school budget. This language that we're looking at now does not take effect until the foundation formula takes effect. So you have some policy choices to make on how to fund pre education under the foundation formula. And you'll see later on that there is a report back requirement from JFO. Actually, it's JFO to hire a contractor for recommendations specific to how to fund pre K under a foundation formula. Because no longer under a foundation formula where school districts be able to just, I mean, they can, they can just roll the costs of operating a pre K program into the costs for operating the school district, but they're only getting a set amount. They can't have a voter approved budget beyond that supplemental district spending aside. So it's a bit of a TBD on whether this draft, this language did in human services. Previous drafts had pre K pulled from education spending and funded through a categorical aid based on the statewide rate for however many hours you set. So coming right off the top of the Ed Fund, rather not through a weight in the educational opportunity payment. This draft keeps the funding, how funding is paid for the same in that it's coming out of school districts allocation, whether that's budget or EOP under the foundation formula, and then asks for a report back on how best to do that under the foundation formula because

[Speaker 1]: I don't know. Didn't we get a report? Didn't JFO just do a report on that?

[Speaker 3]: I don't know that it was this specific. I don't remember what the Act 73 language But yes, JFO did quite a bit of work and modeling related to the cost of pre kindergarten education. But I don't want to speak out of turn. The language in this draft is very specific about funding pre K under the foundational formula. And I don't think that the language in Act 73 was exactly the same. So definition of pre qualified private provider remains the same. The ten hours a week remains the same. That's just a drafting convention change. We used to spell out 10 and now we use the numerals. No changes to the fact that this still remains parental choice. So you can choose where to enroll your child, whether it's a district operated program, pre qualified private provider within your district or outside of your district, or a publicly operated program outside of your district. You still get to choose. Subdivision 3 on page six, line 14 is new. Do you want me to keep going or do you want to? Here, human services added some language about who is responsible for making sure that families are finding pre K education. So a school district shall be responsible for ensuring resident pre K children have access to publicly funded pre K pursuant to this section, either by operating its own pre K program within the district or assisting a family to identify a pre qualified private provider located within the district or in another school district or a pre qualified public provider located in another school district with capacity to enroll new pre kindergarten children. School districts are encouraged to maintain a position or collaborate with other school districts to maintain a shared position that serves as a pre K education coordinator.

[Speaker 0]: So does this mean that a school district would be, if there was no private provider available, they would be basically required to provide pre K because this says they shall be responsible for ensuring a resident child has access to pre K?

[Speaker 3]: I think to answer that question, there's language coming up that more specifically answers that question about what happens when there is not capacity. Wait, there's more.

[Speaker 0]: Can you

[Speaker 2]: just remind us how that responsibility is set out in current law? Before the addition of this proposed language, how does it exist legally today in terms of access?

[Speaker 3]: There's nothing specific in statute that the school district is responsible for essentially helping families find pre K. That's what this language does. Whether that is actually happening in the field, I know anecdotally that there are some school districts and SUs that maintain pre K coordinators that do just that, but this is requiring it on the part of all school districts.

[Speaker 1]: It is requiring that position?

[Speaker 3]: No, it is requiring school districts to help families and find encouraging school districts to maintain or collaborate in the maintenance of a pre K coordinator.

[Speaker 0]: It would happen without somebody hiring We're a

[Speaker 2]: talking

[Speaker 3]: if we're talking about regionally.

[Speaker 2]: Think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves though, is the CSA, the process of setting up CSAs. I mean, I guess this is effective.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, this is, this is

[Speaker 3]: Effective down the road, but we're

[Speaker 2]: sort of creating a solution that we haven't built the structures for.

[Speaker 3]: So here is the language in subdivision three. Do you want

[Speaker 1]: to talk about this one?

[Speaker 3]: Four? Sorry, four about supply. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]: So right now you have language that if the supply of pre qualified private and public providers is insufficient to meet the demand for publicly funded pre K education in the state. And now there's language, nothing shall be construed to require a district to begin or expand a program to satisfy that demand. So that sort of answers the question, what is the obligation now? The proposed change is that if there is insufficient supply to meet the demand, the relevant school districts in the region shall work in collaboration with their pre K coordinators, if any, the Agencies of Education and of Human Services and the local Building Bright Futures Council to meet with neighboring school districts and private providers in the region to develop a regional plan to further expand capacity, including through the issuance of provisional and emergency license issued by the Standards Board for professional educators. And if necessary, a school district shall begin or expand a program to meet that demand.

[Speaker 0]: So to my previous question, the answer is yes.

[Speaker 1]: I think if

[Speaker 3]: the consultation that happens in the first part of the subdivision, if the response to that is school district, you gotta operate a program, then yes. But it could be that it's one or two unique situations and that collaboration is gonna problem solve for those one or two unique situations that doesn't result in the school district being required to expand or begin a program. It's a maybe-

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, think one of things I, well, at a time when there's a lot going on that would require them to do this, makes me a little nervous, but we keep coming back to the issuance of provisional emergency licenses. I know it's done in the public school setting where there's direct supervision of people on provisional licenses. This folks who would be on a provisional license within a private childcare center doesn't necessarily have that level of supervision, I would imagine, just because a private center is wide.

[Speaker 1]: Don't think we're going be

[Speaker 3]: able to answer any questions

[Speaker 0]: in this These are all field questions, how it actually works.

[Speaker 1]: Guess I'm gonna speak out both sides of my mouth here because on one hand, my values are always, we should absolutely be expanding pre K and we need robust pre K, we need full day pre K, we need upstream. We absolutely need to support young children even better in the state. And we've made some great progress through our expansion of child care. And sitting here in the education committee and knowing all of what exists in Act 73 and all the things we're wrestling with and hearing extensive Florida debate just last week about education fund and property taxes, concerned we're looking at saying, yes, let's do better at this really wonderful, important thing that has an educational value. And it's also gonna be in this new, very constrained foundation formula. And so There's a lot things you're gonna be able to answer. I'm mostly just speaking out loud to myself. How are those two gonna meet? This is, yes, wonderful, should be, absolutely, but also costs a lot of money. We're talking about more positions in public schools. At the same time, we're talking about foundation formula that's intent is to constrain and really level education funding. So I'm just seeing a collision course here that is frustrating for us.

[Speaker 0]: It's potentially an unfunded fan page.

[Speaker 4]: Definitely a concern that's been expressed to me over the last couple of years by people who work in this space, it's not just repositions, it's a lot of construction. The requirements of running a pre K program are far beyond just you've

[Speaker 1]: got a room. A playground. And then we could change to afterschools also. This could be

[Speaker 4]: a very, very expensive unfunded mandate.

[Speaker 1]: Go on, sorry. Go ahead. I'll make the decision too.

[Speaker 2]: Sorry, sorry. Yes, of course, chair. Can anyone in the room remind me, just not being familiar with all the pre K reports that we layered on over the years, is there a Vermont specific report that exists that might help us think through this issue that sort of analyzes regional capacity, like where are deserts? What pockets of the state, I'm guessing maybe the rural pockets, struggle to provide this kind of access? Does anybody know if that information exists?

[Speaker 3]: I don't know if it exists in one report that I can refer you to, but you have Building Bright Features in the room. I can ask that later. Okay. Be just helpful context.

[Speaker 1]: Was going to say that

[Speaker 4]: as we continue to talk about the landscape of public education throughout the state of Vermont, which we're talking about all the time, often what we're talking about or what I'm hearing about is the potential of losing small schools, closing small schools. And I continue to bring up that these small schools could save themselves by turning into real community schools and utilizing the space that's created by declining enrollment by putting other things into that space. And I think as much as I would like to see more public pre K, you could put private pre K in a public school building, And you'd still be offering something that your community needs and be on a path to save your smalls.

[Speaker 0]: All right, well, section is clearly ripe for more conversation. I suspect the rest of this may not be, so we can hopefully get everybody out of here in time. Since this is taking a little longer than expected, I'm gonna push 1 to 150, if you would check my checking with our witness. Right.

[Speaker 3]: Section D on page seven, line 18, is the tuition subsection for section eight twenty nine. And there have been no changes here to the amount of hours or the way that the statewide rate is calculated as far as the math involved. However, the process for statewide rate approval has changed. So on page eight oh, do you want talk about this?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, this is all in the future.

[Speaker 2]: Budget presentations. So this requires that the agencies each year, when they do their budget presentations before the various committees in the general assembly, propose a particular rate and that the general assembly has an opportunity to take testimony, ask questions, and approve the rate that has been proposed or a slightly different rate as part of the process. So it would ride with the budget.

[Speaker 3]: Right now that rate is just set.

[Speaker 0]: It's a rate. It's rate. Thank you.

[Speaker 3]: And the other change in the sub division, page eight, line two, to account for a statewide calendar coming into effect, maybe right around this time, just removal of the phrase or the reference to the district's academic year, because now there's just going to be one academic year. Subdivision two, line 15, page eight, we're repealing this language because it's related to annual budget presented to the voters. And this language is going to take effect at the same time as the foundation formula, so there would no longer be an annual budget presented to the voters. And then Okay. On page nine subdivision four, we're still in this tuition subsection. Currently, the language says that pre qualified private providers may receive additional payments directly from parents or guardians for pre K education in excess of hours paid for by the district pursuant to this section or for childcare services or both. Now we're adding language. So we're striking that language and adding the language that says, in addition to the hours paid for by the district pursuant to this section, a prequalified public or private provider may receive additional payment directly from the parent or guardian for child care services. So calling out that both public and private providers may receive additional payments from families on top of the ten hours a week for pre K if it is for child care services.

[Speaker 4]: What if it's for freefall?

[Speaker 3]: This language does not contemplate that.

[Speaker 0]: I'm gonna guess that this is really designed so it can blend with the CCFAP program, which is the childcare financial aid program. So outside of the ten hours a week, everything else would be considered childcare in order to qualify for that and allow public and private entities to receive CCFAP subsidies.

[Speaker 4]: What about public pre K that's being offered full debt? It's not childcare, it's pre K.

[Speaker 0]: No, I hear what you're saying.

[Speaker 3]: They haven't solved for that yet. This language provides for ten hours of publicly funded pre K at the same time that the foundation formula takes effect. You being the general assembly have asked for a report back in this language on how to fund pre K under the foundation formula. And so I think it's an open question as to How that is paid for. Just because a program is licensed by DCF and qualifies for CCFAP funding for childcare services doesn't necessarily mean there can't be other educational components to that programming. This language is very specific to just ten hours a week. And if you want to allow for more than that, I think that that's language does not contemplate that.

[Speaker 0]: I realize this is well in the future. Your point is rather interesting in that, Are you there then and therefore? Providing a disincentive to provide full day Pre K. Because you could instead offer ten hours of Pre K, call the rest of it childcare, even though it probably looks identical, but collect tuition during that time. Which happens today. And

[Speaker 4]: a question about the requirement to have a licensed early They're childcare required for the pre K, so you might hire, I'm getting in the weeds here, but you might hire them for the ten hour part, and then everything that's beyond that ten hours would not necessarily have to be a licensed provider. Licensed child would like a full time job.

[Speaker 1]: I know, I'm just saying, does that throw

[Speaker 4]: a monkey wrench into it? Because I'm sure they love a full

[Speaker 3]: time job.

[Speaker 0]: I think it's probably fair to say that asking for a report, coming up with how to fund pre K in the future, probably would have an impact on Yes. At the time being, What's this is just saying that?

[Speaker 5]: That feels a little backward. Know, laying out the language and then saying later, you know, that's just a fact to me.

[Speaker 0]: And can I be is it fair to say that what is written right here is current law? School district Oh, that's yeah. Six through eight. Can't the can't the school district well, I'm not sure if this language, but currently, a school district can provide their ten hours of pre K then or half a day or whatever it might be, but then can charge tuition as a childcare provider thereafter.

[Speaker 4]: It's outside the regular school, isn't it?

[Speaker 0]: Used I to think that. Apparently we have heard from reputable sources that there are schools that now provide childcare outside of pre K, but within the school day and charge tuition. The question would be, is that currently allowed under current law?

[Speaker 2]: There's language specifically on point eight nine that specifically addresses that question. But I think that we have all heard that there are school districts that are offering their pre K services and then CCFAP eligible childcare services.

[Speaker 0]: Within the school that. If that currently exists, this is sort of making that clear?

[Speaker 2]: This is saying that the tuition could be charged to the family, so not just CCBAP eligibility. But if it's a family that's outside of the scope of eligibility for CCBAP, that there could be tuition payments.

[Speaker 0]: Which is not currently allowed?

[Speaker 3]: There's nothing in Section eight twenty nine that we can

[Speaker 2]: point to

[Speaker 3]: that can answer your question. And that's the piece of law that we're working in today. It's possible that that is happening.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, legally happening. It's possible

[Speaker 3]: that that is happening.

[Speaker 5]: This is not limited by crime law.

[Speaker 3]: You are not going to get me on the record. I'm so sorry.

[Speaker 0]: Let me say legally, it's subprime, but it's Okay, generally folks, check out here.

[Speaker 2]: Next subsection is E, In your existing language in 08/29, it requires great development of rules. There is a long list of everything that has to be in the rules. We have ellipses on line 14 to say admitted from this draft, not being changed here. The one item that is being changed is this subdivision 10 that is adding in building bright features. So it's a requirement to establish a system by which the agency of education, DCF and BBF shall jointly monitor and evaluate pre K education programs, etcetera.

[Speaker 3]: Brings us to the geographic limitations. So current law, I'm on page 10, line four of subsection G, I'm sorry, subsection H, line eight. Current law for school districts to basically set pre K regions, and that's where their families are limited to picking pre K programs that would be funded under this subsection or under this section. And this language proposes to just remove that concept. I think that human services was thinking that maybe that has something to

[Speaker 1]: do with now we're going to

[Speaker 3]: have seesaw regions. And so do we want to have regions on top of regions on top of regions? But specifically, if you have questions about why this language is being repealed, would encourage you to talk to human services.

[Speaker 0]: I'll just speak for that just based on your problem existing. There are very few, but a couple of districts out there who say pre K dollars do not go outside the district to private pre K programs. And parents have been said, but it'd be so much better for me because I work in this area, it's out of district. They've said, no, I think there's maybe two or one left that still doesn't. This would just eliminate that and say, and it would be very similar across the state. It's very common today, but just that you could take your pre K voucher out of your school district in order to get the services. Generally, the issue is closer to where you work for transportation reasons.

[Speaker 2]: This the August '29. So we have now looked at three sections of amendment, amending eight twenty nine at different dates. We're moving out of that language. And now we have reporting and contracting language. So section five requires that by 01/01/2030, the Child Development Division shall submit a status report to the various policy committees assessing private pre K providers' readiness to comply with Section three of this act on 07/01/2033. So that is the interim report I was mentioning earlier, And that's looking at the readiness to have not just employer contract with a teacher, but to have the teacher providing the pre K services.

[Speaker 3]: And then section section six is that JFO report I referred to a couple of times. So section six requires JFO to contract with a contractor with expertise in Vermont's education funding system to make recommendations regarding how to account for the provision of pre K within Vermont's education finance system, including the consideration of use of categorical aid for the inclusion of pre kindergarten education within a foundation formula through the use of a pre kindergarten weight. The contractor's recommendation shall be designed to provide funding for pre kindergarten education that supports achieving access for all pre K children as that term is defined in 16 BSA eight twenty nine with equal payments and equal educational standards for public and private providers, ensures that the cost of pre kindergarten education is included in the full cost of education, increases access and participation in areas of the state where access or participation is limited, and continues to support a mixed delivery system. The recommendation, I'm on page 13 now, shall, to the extent possible, align with the recommendations of the 45A report that you are getting back pursuant to Act 73. The contractor shall submit a written report with the contractor's recommendations related to pre K, to the education committees, and the human services committees on or before January 15 year. And there is a $50,000 appropriation to JFO from the general fund in fiscal year twenty twenty seven to hire that contractor.

[Speaker 0]: Now, since the presentation, so good time for any clarification or questions?

[Speaker 1]: I don't know if you'll be able to clarify this. Is this the AIR study that's already under contract? Which one?

[Speaker 3]: Section 45A on page three, line three, yes, that is the AIR study. This language would allow JFO to contract with a contractor. And so whether that's amending AIR's scope of work or getting a completely separate contractor would be a question for JFL.

[Speaker 2]: This is more of a comment, I think, for the committee, maybe. I think the AIR report is due back, I think, the January 2027. So it's kind of interesting if they did go with a separate contractor, they would have two weeks to reconcile and align the recommendations.

[Speaker 0]: That's a different question.

[Speaker 3]: AIR report, I believe, is due back to summer first. And this January 15 date was a date that JFO encouraged me to use.

[Speaker 0]: I would say for me, there seems like representative Brady always talks about the order of operations. And so sort of this requirement that school districts provide pre K before all this information. Putting the requirement in, I realize it doesn't hit until a later date, but before we have these reports, seems a little bit of cart before the horse. Because it says, if necessary, a school district shall begin or expand a program to meet that demand. That is a mandate. Yet they don't even know how they're going to be funded yet to make that happen. And when I was thinking about that, I was really thinking about just teacher and program who brought up construction. That made me even a little more wary of that. So if we were to remove section three on page six, ending at nine fourteen, We take out section three and four. Well, the underlying parts. How does that ripple through the rest of the proposal in front of us?

[Speaker 2]: You have, so you're taking out sections three and four of this class. You have the legislative intent section left. You have these July changes having the database on the agents' websites, having sort of three tiers of what's happening with licensed teachers.

[Speaker 0]: Allow provisional and emergency licenses.

[Speaker 2]: You'd have this any K Trace School District language, and then you'd have the two reports.

[Speaker 0]: But it wouldn't necessarily affect those pieces that would mean, in other words, doesn't have a consequential effect on the reports.

[Speaker 2]: Could the other pieces stand alone without three and four is

[Speaker 3]: what I that's think unfortunately, maybe. So depends on what you want back from the contractor. So if the contractor is looking at ten hours a week provided under current law, that's what they're going to be doing their analysis of. And if you want them to be doing an analysis of a separate system that either provides for more money or different provision of where those are happening, then the contractor is not going to be able to give you an analysis of how to fund that new system because they don't know what that new system is. So it is a little chicken or the egg situation.

[Speaker 2]: Sounds like you could remove a four, but build in if there are certain assumptions that the new system would have, you could build that into the contracting language. So if you are assuming a certain number of hours other than ten, you could build that in and require the contractor to have that assumption when they're answering the fiscal questions.

[Speaker 3]: What would a system look like? How do you fund pre K education at ten hours a week period? How do you fund pre K education? How do you fund the system and allow for school districts to make their own choices on how many hours of publicly funded pre K education, you could build all of that in to the report back that you get from the contractor.

[Speaker 4]: There are some parts of section four that at first blush, I like that I've been at it, so I don't know if I want to remove all of section four. For example, the part about if you're eligible for kindergarten, but you're not developmentally ready, there's an option for them to do pre K. There's also taking out all the geographic limitations is in section four, which seems good. And also the childcare payments over tenant hours being part of section four. So amending section four rather than deleting.

[Speaker 0]: No, it was a subsection. Subsection. Oh, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]: Just the subsection. He

[Speaker 0]: just is here.

[Speaker 1]: Okay, makes more sense. Thank you. Is that part about

[Speaker 4]: the wiring of the

[Speaker 0]: sorry. What I was talking about was, well, beginning on page six, subsection or subdivision three, beginning on line 14, moving that family room number four to the new language.

[Speaker 1]: All right, that makes more sense to me. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Does that change anything that you just said?

[Speaker 3]: I don't think so. Other than the potential for modeling related to a position that's required to be maintained. Move the changes to Subdivision 3 And 4 without affecting the rest of the bill or the rest of this language from a legal perspective, whether that means that the policy choices you are making elsewhere are either more or less supported, think, Does for you all to

[Speaker 0]: it affect what the study is studying? So maybe in the interest of us having lunch, when you get a chance, would you show us new language that removes three and four's new language at Schleich Gauze?

[Speaker 3]: How would you like pre K language to come to you going forward?

[Speaker 0]: That's a great question. What our options?

[Speaker 3]: A separate standalone document under the standalone drafting request to Or

[Speaker 0]: as part of?

[Speaker 3]: For pre k. Or I can start adding it to your committee bill.

[Speaker 0]: For the next version, let's keep it apart, and then we'll probably move it to the committee bill.

[Speaker 3]: Any other changes in the next draft?

[Speaker 0]: I guess for the moment, no.

[Speaker 3]: I I'm think gonna see you until 03:30 again. Do you have, you don't have pre K specifically spelled out?

[Speaker 0]: We do not. Okay.

[Speaker 3]: Yes. So would you like this for this afternoon?

[Speaker 0]: I might as well, if that's doable. If it's not, that's fine for tomorrow.

[Speaker 3]: And it'll likely just be me this afternoon.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Thank you both very much.