Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Hi. Welcome back, everyone. House government operations military affairs. It is 10:45, and we are picking up more work with witness testimony this morning on s two zero six, an act relating to licensure of early childhood educators by the Office of Professional Regulation. And with us, we have Jeff Fanon, the executive director on NEA. How you doing, sir? Good morning. I'm well. How are you? Doing fine.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: Doing fine. Good morning. As as the chair said, I'm Jeff Fanon, executive director of Vermont NEA. Don't often come into this committee, so, it's good to see some friendly faces, but and meet some new ones. But thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you about S206. And I'll do some introduction of myself and Vermonen Yeh, really, you, so you have it. I've got written testimony that I'll share afterwards. I may make some changes depending on the questions that you may have. But first off, Romanian represents about 16,000 educators in this state, in the publicly funded school system. So that is both licensed teachers and education support professionals, ESPs as we call them, who are employed in those public schools, approved independent schools, and therapeutic schools. Therapeutic schools being schools that with kids, if you don't know, mostly on IEPs, you can't be educated in a regular school setting. We are supportive of the bill, s two zero six, but think there should be some amendments, language clarifications that will be, helpful to clarify the problem to be solved and how best to address it without confusion. We're concerned about the word confusion in this matter. The bill that is passed by the Senate would create an entirely new and separate licensure regulatory system for early childhood educators under the Secretary of State's Office of Professional Regulation, OPR, as you know it. Currently, the Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators, VSBPE or Board, is a 13 member teacher majority board appointed by the governor that oversees the training, licensing and professional standards of all Vermont teachers, including teachers who are endorsed as Early Childhood Educators VSBPE has 38 teacher licensure endorsements, including early childhood education and early childhood special education. Because kids who are in IEPs, for example, and young, are entitled to special ed services even before they get to the school system, public school system. And I'll just quote from the licensing regulations under the AOE standards board, rules here. The holder of an ECE teacher license is authorized to teach young children birth through pre k, pre k through grade three, or birth through grade three as specified in the teacher's endorsement. The endorsement, you have a teacher license, and then you get endorsed in certain areas. Early childhood educator and early childhood special educator are two endorsements. And that's in the rules, and I give you those in my written testimony. And as it relates to special ed teachers, special ed education, childhood special ed teachers, the holder of an early childhood special education teacher license is authorized to provide early childhood education, birth through preschool, and early intervention and special education services, including service coordination, case management, and comprehensive evaluation services to children from birth to age six. So that's in current regulation now under the AOE's guidance. The Vermont Agency of Education provides, administrative support and technical support to the Standards Board. Additionally, the Standards Board is a member of and supported by the Professional Educator Standards Board Education, which is under the auspices of the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification NASDAQ is the national entity that establishes teacher quality standards for all states to adopt in accordance with state policies and practices. NASDAQ also maintains the national database that tracks teacher licensure for reciprocity purposes, allowing for the mobility of properly licensed teachers across state lines, both in and out of Vermont, if you will. And moreover and significantly, that database also tracks teacher license discipline to ensure the safety of students. So people who are disciplined in one state can't then transfer to another state, and teach there without going through Nasdaq. And so that's the purpose of Nasdaq is to track that. This background is important given the additional licensure structure s two zero six would create. The three proposed new early childhood educator licenses as described in section three of the bill, are early childhood educator one, two, and three or ECE one, ECE two, or ECE three. Romanianier supports the bill's unstated intent to professionalize the early education workforce to increase the wages of early childhood education professionals and stabilize, therefore, the early education workforce to increase, education opportunities for PONS parents. Vermont A supports the establishment of the new OPR administered board for the licensure of ECE one and ECE two. We do not support the establishment of the new ECE three license as it would be confusing given the almost identical requirements under the existing Standards Board rules that I cited above. Indeed, the bill itself acknowledges the confusion between this new proposed OPR licensure system and the existing AOE Standards Board licensure system. If you look at Section three, proposed Title 26 VSA section 6,226 subsection three, wherein the newly licensed early educator must disclose to families the difference between this proposed license and the existing AOE license. That's required in the bill if passed. This proposed section of law could be deleted thereby eliminating any potential confusion by parents. If you eliminate ECE three, as we suggest. Vermont public schools are providing Pre K education already. And in so doing, they are employing, Standards Board licensed teachers already. The VSVPE requirements for pre K teachers are almost identical to the proposed requirements in S206 for ECE3. In addition to generally recommending the elimination of ECE3 throughout the bill, because it's redundant and confusing, we recommend changing the nomenclature from early childhood profession changing the nomenclature to early childhood professional one and two, ECP one and ECP two, so as to further, obviate any confusion, which is to simil which is similar to what the AOE proposed and likewise similar to what the child development division deputy commissioner Janet McLaughlin in her April 8 slide deck considered as reasonable. I'm not saying it's identical to what they said. It's similar to what they suggested, reasonable as to, ECEP. And I think it's just dry dropping the the second e to ECEP is a better way and a simpler way to go. If you have any questions, I'll be pleased to try responding to them. And I thank you very much.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Absolutely. Jeff, you said you had, some amendments. And how many total?

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: Well, it's I don't know because it's we're suggesting striking ECE three. It's the bill's got a lot of mention of that, understandably. So I didn't count how many of it. It's just simply dropping the ECE three as currently proposed in the bill. And I think you can eliminate as well the section I referenced, section three twenty six VSA 6,226 subsection three. That's a section that requires somebody who's licensed under this new proposed regimen to disclose to families the difference between the two licensures, which seemed really confusing and perhaps more confusing to parents than necessary, I would suggest.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Did I see your hand? Ben Waters Evans? Yes.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: Thank you. If you haven't submitted your written testimony to our committee assistant, that would be really helpful. So let's But reread I hate to make you repeat this. In the very beginning of your testimony, you talked about the AOE licenses that are available currently. Would you please repeat that section?

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: Sure. I'm happy to. And I can check this is this is good. I will add it and actually give you a link to their regulations. You don't have to look at all two twenty three pages. I did, and I have, but I'll link to it so you can have it. There are 38 different teacher licenses endorsements on the AOE Standards Board. Standards Board is an independent board, but the AOE it operates under the AOE for administrative support, technical support. I believe the AOE AOE will be in tomorrow as I understand it. And to give you some testimony, I've heard rumors of that. I don't I don't know. But they they could be better answer better able to answer that. And don't know if you want me to go more deep into that. It's a 13 member teacher majority board that regulates teachers in the state of Vermont now.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: I think my question was, you had mentioned three different licenses or endorsements that are available. And whatever you said about them, I missed.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: Got it. I apologize.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: One was birth to pre K. I think pre K to grade three, and birth to three is what I got, but I'm not sure I got that properly.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: I may have confused you then. There are 30 That's why this is so confusing. That's right.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: That's

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: good. Two of the endorsements are early childhood education is one, and the other is early childhood special education. And depending on the the subset of endorsements, if you will, they have endorsements within that. For early childhood education, the holders authorized to teach young children birth through pre k, comma, pre K through grade three, or birth through grade three as specified in their individual endorsements. Likewise, or similarly, special ed, early childhood special educators are authorized to provide early childhood education similar, almost identical, think, I believe it is, birth through preschool and early intervention and special education services, including service coordination, case management, and comprehensive evaluation services to children from birth to age six.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: Thank you. I think that's the one I missed. And that's specific to special ed. Yes. Thanks.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Doctor. Evans.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: Thank you. So I'm trying to gather my question here, so I'm feeling like and I asked this question of someone, I think, from the AOE who was here last week when they were talking about the titles. And you're saying that it's going to be confusing for parents. It seems like possibly up until this point, it's already been confusing for parents. What exactly obviously, which is sort of the reason why we're considering this in the first place, right, is to make it less confusing because there's sort of it's all over the place ish now. We're not, we don't do education stuff here. So if I'm not speaking the right language. But I guess my question is this, like when it comes to the title, I'm failing to see how that could be confusing. And it seems a little bit like it's trying to separate people into two kind of different classes of early childhood educator. And by class, I don't mean my classroom. I mean, like, like status or something. You know what I mean? And I feel like if they're all going through these steps to become people who educate children in early childhood, I'm not seeing how that could be confusing for parents to call them educators when they are educators.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: Yes, think it's sort of excuse me, maybe the because schools are already providing pre k, some are, some are not. Waiting, gets in the education funding, questions to drive that. Some do it and some don't. They could be confused about somebody comes in to apply for a job in a public school setting that's providing pre k, and they say I'm licensed as an early childhood educator. That may be true under the OPR system, but students are obligated under state law currently to employ teachers that are licensed under the Standards Board. And so, that's where the confusion should be. I find it interesting that the proposed law for the bill would have the licensee, whether ECD one, two, or three, having to disclose to families the difference between their licensure and the AOE's Standards Board license. I find that in my I've doing this for a little bit that's unique to that. So I think that's demonstrated the confusion that we may be compounding. If you said there was confusion, I don't know that there is, but I won't argue with you. If we're going to try to clarify, I don't think passing a law about, particularly about ECE three, that then obligates that person to then disclose to a family, as it says in the law or the bill, that he or she must disclose the difference between the two different license regimens. I don't think that's helpful and it demonstrates a little bit to me the confusion here. Lastly, NASDAQ, the national body that sort of oversees this and tracks it on their database, they may be confused. Because other states don't have two systems. They have typically one system of licensing teachers. And so here we are creating potentially another license track for teachers. And that may confuse the national body and may interrupt the ability or the mobility of teachers to reciprocity agreements. And I don't know the details of that. I'm not privy to that. But I think that may be another potential confusion that we should probably try to avoid.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: What would be the sort of negative outcome of people being confused by this?

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: Well, I work in mostly the public school arena. So I would say administrators wouldn't know who's trying to apply for jobs. I think people who think they have a license because they do under OPR would be perhaps mistaken in applying for a job in a public school system where you've got a law that says you have to have a teacher license under the Standards Board and not this other board. So I think that may confuse hiring practices in school. As well, retirement, which I do find myself in this committee talking about, is eligible to teachers who are licensed by the Standards Board, not this other board. So, that might cause confusion. So, you might have people working side by side in theory, hold two different licenses, and are subject to two different sets of benefits and other things. So I think that's confusion that we typically try to avoid. And for families, I don't know. It's been a long time since my kids were in early education. And one may be heading in the other provider end of it already. But I think it confuses the people who work there. And if families you're right. They may not care who's working with their kids. They do abundantly care that they're high quality. And that's where I think the Standards Board is already going and humming along for years and years now. And we may have two different standards. We may have they're closed, but they're not identical. That's where families may be. Some centers may say, hey, we've got all of our teachers are licensed in the standard board, and others may promote the OPR board. It's just which is better? That kind of confusion for families. And so that's why that provision of law in the bill seems odd to me.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Thank you.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: Not sure I answered your question. I rambled a bit, but it's not an exact science about what confuses people.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: Yeah, of course. Thank you. Thank

[Chair Matthew Birong]: So

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: would you say, like, at

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone, Member]: a time when we're trying to make things more efficient, that this kind of seems to be going in a different direction as far as the way it's written now?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: It

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: does sound to me a bit incongruent with what the overall system discussion that we're having about the public education system, publicly funded education system. We're trying to create efficiencies of scale and other efficiencies. This seems a little out of step with that, I would suggest. But I think for there is no for EC one and two, there is no corresponding licensure under the Standards Board, but there is for three. That would be the disconnect for me.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Any other questions for Mr. Bennington? Okay.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: Thank you all. I will I will edit and adjust my testimony a bit and send it to you.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. And you're gonna stick with us through the end, right?

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: Yes.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Just in case anything else comes up. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you all. Alright. Well, we're gonna shift over to our guests via Zoom. And we have, Shannon Edmonds Wholesome next, childcare manager, JP Resort. How are you?

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: Good morning, everybody. Am I coming through?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yes, you are. Am Soon as we get fanned out of the way.

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: I am well, and I'm excited to join you at a distance, from, you know, stone's throw south of the Canadian border. So, good morning everyone. For the record, I am Shannon Edmunds Folsom and I am the childcare manager for JPEG Resort. I'm humbled to be invited to this committee to testify for S206. And it feels especially meaningful since I grew up in a military family. Both of my parents served in the army and my father retired in 2006 as a major after serving for twenty five years. And it's entirely because of my father's military career that my family was relocated to Vermont in 1997. And it was my mom's decision to keep my brother and me in Vermont in no small part because of conversations with other service members stationed here that reassured her about the high quality of Vermont's public education. So as for my current role in early childhood education, I am the childcare manager for JPEG Resort. In licensing terms, I am the program director of our licensed center based childcare program and preschool program. And we also offer non recurring services. Our program, JPEG childcare exists in this unique space in so far that it is a private business operated by JPEG resort, but we do benefit from CCFAP funding also known as subsidy and universal pre K act 166 funding, which comes from the state and from the public school systems. So we have access to act 166 funds because I am also the agency of education licensed teacher for our universal pre K program with a birth through pre K endorsement. So this means that I split my time between the administrative side of the department, but I also still spend time directly in the classroom with my students. And I do support S206 and I testified my support for the bill at the Senate Committee for Health and Welfare back in January. So briefly, here are my reasons for supporting S206. So it provides a clear pathway to attract and retain new members to the ECE field. It provides further accountability for ECE professionals, which generates trust and security for the families we serve. It provides a clear structure for employers to incentivize better compensation for early childhood educators. And it offers employers a clearer sense of qualifications and professional commitment to the ECE field when hiring and recruiting staff. As far as I understand, there is still a transition time built in to this bill to last over several years to allow existing providers to gain licensure while also providing inroads for new recruitments directly into this new system. There is also room for and a need for current providers to offer their knowledge and experience and bridge the best parts of our current practices to this new structure. It also provides an opportunity to further the conversation about the false divide between care and education and help de stigmatize the ECE field as somehow less than the public education system. So in conclusion, I support S206 because it's an opportunity to take an actionable step towards stabilizing the early childhood education career field. And further, it's systemic change that reflects Vermont's evolving values in prioritizing accessible, high quality care and education for children and families. So thank you all for your time and consideration. And I'd like to offer any remaining time I have for answering any questions from the committee.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Beth Hango.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: Thank you. Thanks for being here. I represent some of your neighboring towns around Jai, so I'm particularly interested in your program. What age children do you serve?

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: Absolutely, so overall for both our recurring and non recurring services, we are licensed to serve birth through 12, but we are staffed to best serve birth through five years. This is because when we offer guest services, right, that's our non recurring. We offer that zero to four because our group ski lessons start at four years old. So if they're four or older, we're trying to guide them towards our ski program. And then for our employees and local residents, we offer UPK. So typically then when a child is ready to transition into kindergarten, they're off into the public school system. So we're typically serving zero through five. And I hope that was a thorough explanation of two pieces here.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: It was, I was writing as you were talking, so guests are birth through five or four rather or through

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: four. For birth through four, you know, I certainly have guests that call and say, hey, I siblings and one of them is seven. Can you take them? And I say, well, absolutely we can. Our license allows for that. But do please be aware that they will have much younger playmates and you're the expert on your seven year old. If they're gonna be happy here, we can take them. That's totally fine. But if they are going, we don't wanna sit around with a bunch of toddlers. Well, then ski

[Unidentified Committee Member]: school is

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: literally the next room over and you should give them a call, right? So that's the customer service piece of guiding the guests to their best experience.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: And you are in very close proximity to the ski school program geographically. You're right next door to each other. Well, interest.

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: So interestingly at JP, we have the gift of having two separate licensed spaces. So tram side is our employee and our local resident center. And we exist sort of, in our own little space here. And then the licensed childcare space that we, it is seasonally operated that is in our Ski And Ride School building. So those are physically next to each other. And, I sort of mostly live on tram side, but I handle everything everywhere.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: Great, thank you. And one last question. I know I was writing while you were talking staff is also served zero through twelve. If or zero through actually zero through five because they most likely will be going to the local public elementary schools, correct? Once they hit age five?

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: Yes, exactly. And so that leaves open a question for, you know, potential growth for our program for like after school or for school breaks. That if I had additional staff, if employees are saying, Hey, I've got a six and seven year old, but I have to work during president's week. You know, if I had more teachers and I'd be able to serve that demographic. And that's definitely something that I'm working towards in the future.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: Great, thank you. I appreciate that you're there for staff as well as guests. And you said some local residents as well choose your program?

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: Yes, I mean, that's why anyone's welcome if we have an open space, anyone's welcome to see if they're a good fit, but it does take a very specific local resident who's not an employee that wants to drive up and down 242 every day.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: Somebody who wants to ski every day. Thanks for being there. Thank you.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Any other questions for Cheams? Seeing no hands. All right, if you don't mind sticking with us, if you have the time, that would be great. You can say anything, pile up, or if have any other comments based on other testimony, feel free to free to stick around, Shannon.

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: Sure, thank you so much.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yes, thank you. Up next via Zoom, we have Danny Sotto. Did I pronounce that correctly? That

[Unidentified Committee Member]: is correct.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: All right. And you're a board member from NorthSherry Day School.

[Danny Sotto, Vice President, Board of Trustees, Northshire Day School]: Also correct, yes. So I'm vice president of board of trustees at North Shire Day School in Manchester. North

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Shire

[Danny Sotto, Vice President, Board of Trustees, Northshire Day School]: Day School is a early childhood education center or community based nonprofit, depending upon the day of the week we enroll anywhere between ninety and one hundred children, infant to pre K. I'm also a parent. I have two little boys, nine and five. The nine year old went to Northshire. The five year old is soon to be graduating, which my wallet will be very happy about. So just speaking, you know, I think from from two different perspectives, on on S 206, which obviously I'm a major supporter of, you know, from a parent perspective, you know, this is a very difficult field for for parents to navigate. There's no insight into the quality of these providers, right? So it's largely word-of-mouth and you have to trust that the parent you talk to whose kids went there ten years ago is still a safe place to send your children to on a full time basis, Monday through Friday, right? Eight to five. There's very little transparency. Professionally, I work in the financial services industry as a financial advisor. If somebody wants to work with me, can go on any number of regulatory websites to find out my work history, to find out my licensure, my employers, my previous work history. None of that exists in this space. In public school, obviously, we know that there are standards, there's licenses, and so we easily trust that school system. This does not exist in this space. From a parent's perspective, when I talk to other parents, they are shocked to find out this doesn't already exist. That's

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: from

[Danny Sotto, Vice President, Board of Trustees, Northshire Day School]: the parents' perspective. From a program perspective, you know, this is this is a difficult, field to find more teachers. There's a significant shortage. We're constantly in fear of having to close classrooms because we have teachers that are out, that are sick, that are that are leaving to go work in the public school space. And, you know, programmatically, it's also very difficult because these programs, you know, carry heavy liability insurance, because if an employee harms a child, it's only the program that's responsible. So in our estimation, licensure ensures shared liability, better protects young children. You know, for example, if we have to fire somebody for misconduct, they can go work at another program the next day. And likewise, we could end up hiring somebody without knowing their previous misconduct. So, you know, this bill, this law is very much needed in this space, both from a parent's perspective and a program perspective. Happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Anyone questions for this particular witness? Okay. Alright. No. Thank you for all of that. I mean, we're still taking testimony. Oh, rep Nugent. There we go. You got a hand.

[Rep. Kate Nugent, Member]: I was just wondering if you could talk about since your program, works with early childhood zero to three and then preschool, it sounds like, if you could talk about the needs of those two age groups and how you think about best meeting them, how they are best met, and how those may or may not connect with each other?

[Danny Sotto, Vice President, Board of Trustees, Northshire Day School]: That's a great question. Where we see the highest demand for childcare, you know, our waiting list is almost 90 children deep at this point. And it's the vast majority of them are on the infant side, zero to three. And that's very difficult for programs like ours because of student to teacher ratio requirements, it costs us money, right, to offer zero to three services. Pre K, right, we can have much lower ratios. And so in essence, you know, we're nonprofit, but that is, quote, our profitable space, so to speak. But you know, pre K, we're pre K partners or requires licensed educators. Does not technically from from zero to two, three. You know, the thing that that we see from zero to three, you know that I think parents are surprised to to find, you know, until you get into this. We have about onethree of our students that are in early intervention development services. Because of the teachers that we have, who we're very fortunate to have are highly educated, more than half of them have bachelor's degrees in the space, You know, we're able to quickly diagnose developmental deficiencies, get them the help that they need. And in most cases, by the time they leave our pre K program, go to kindergarten, they're no longer on those services.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Nope. Alright. Thank you very much for your time, Sarah. If you want to stick around, feel free. And that moves us over to final witness on the agenda, Christine Birong Smith. How are you?

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Well, thank you. How are you?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Fine. Good. Good. In case anybody couldn't tell by the obscure last name, we are related.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: We are related. Full transparency, that is my big brother. Oh, and also for full transparency, I am not a choir teacher. I was like, that is like I was like, it's just a joke. Like It would

[Chair Matthew Birong]: be good if it was intentional. I don't know how that

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: I know. It would have been good if it was intentional.

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: We did

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: see that.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The wire.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: Yeah. My sleepy traps.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Anyways The

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Byrons are not known for their vocal

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: I'm just ready to go update my LinkedIn profile. It's that typo. So, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Christine Birong Smith. I am a nonprofit universal pre k classroom teacher at Lincoln Cooperative Preschool in Lincoln, Vermont. I hold a birth through pre K Vermont State teaching license level two and two master's degrees, one of which is in early childhood education. I would qualify for an ECE three. I do not qualify for Vermont NEA representation despite being qualified to teach in public schools. S206 would provide me an additional form of recognition and professional representation and protection that NEA does not offer me. I encourage you to support the ECE3. So, yes, I am here to speak to S206, specifically in regard to costs and program support. To do that effectively, I will first briefly talk about Act 76. Under Act 76, early childhood education programs were not required to use the increased funding that was provided through higher reimbursement rates and expanded eligibility to raise wages, but many did. I am a teacher in one such program that chose to allocate funds in this way, and it has contributed greatly to my financial security. In sum, early childhood education is seeing wage increases in the field, and I am one example of this. S two zero six builds on that progress by adding a layer of accountability to ensure those public investments are delivering the intended results. Importantly, we do not expect s two zero six to increase the cost of childcare for families. If anything, this legislation may generate savings for the state by streamlining regulations and improving systems within the child development division for determining qualifications. There are also strong thoughtful measures in place to support family child care providers. Two key amendments strengthen this bill in this way. One to protect the current workforce and another to support future providers. The first is the creation of a family child care provider license. That acts as a legacy pathway, ensuring that anyone operating a family child care program in home as of 01/01/2029, can continue their work without disruption and effectively allowing them to be grandfathered. The second is that the bill establishes a conditional license for future providers. This allows individuals to open a home based family child care with an ECE one license while giving them six years to obtain an ECE two license. This strikes a balance between maintaining program quality and ensuring the pathway into the profession remains accessible. It's also important to note that there are already incentives in place to support professional growth. Career ladder recognition bonuses provide wage supplements to early childhood educators who increase their qualifications, reinforcing a system that rewards advancement and continued education. In addition, the Vermont Association for the Education of Young Children is currently administering the Foundation Forward pilot. This innovative cohort based model supports experienced early childhood educators in beginning their college education through assessment for prior learning. The program is free and includes mentoring, technology support, and dedicated guidance for early childhood educators. On average, participants earn at 30 college credits, and it has been especially appealing to family child care providers. Together, these efforts reflect a coordinated approach, investing in the workforce, supporting providers at every stage, and ensuring accountability for public dollars. For these reasons, I respectfully encourage you to support S206 and continue building a stronger, professional, and more sustainable early childhood education system for Vermont. Thank you for your time and your commitment to Vermont.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Thank you very much. And if you could, when we're done, remit that written testimony to our committee assistance, so we'll have it on.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Yeah. And I made some additional notes on it. Do you want me to add those in, type those up, and then send them over?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Absolutely. Like, no rush on it. Tighten it up however you want to, but we'd like to have that progress installation.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Yes, absolutely.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Thank you. Representative Hango.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: Thank you. Thanks, Christine. What did you mean about not being eligible for Vermont NEA services? Because I don't understand your question if you're a licensed pre K teacher.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Correct. Yes. And again, I would qualify for the ECE three. So I don't qualify, even though I teach at a program that does receive, I'm a licensed teacher and I receive, and I have a master's degree and all of that. I teach at a school that receives universal pre K funding, so it does receive public dollars. But I don't qualify for, union representation or anything like that, because of the way that the union is structured and we're, we're boxed out of it.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: You hold an AOE license? I missed that.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: I do. That is the Vermont state teaching license. Yes, I have

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: a level two license for birth through pre K. So that seems to me it's because you're spending part of your time delivering universal pre K.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Yes. And the rest of the time is your duties within the structure of the school that you're at that is not a public elementary school? Correct. I'm at a nonprofit preschool that receives UPK funding. And because even though I qualify to I am very qualified to teach in a public school, I do not qualify for representation.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: So that seems to me like maybe at some point in time, there could be a partial qualification to be a partial union member. I don't even know how that would work for individuals in your situation. Thanks.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Any questions? You're working towards one?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: I have so many thoughts and questions.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: We're pulling it up, come on.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: Yeah, listen, they're all in here. I'm just we don't ever really talk about education stuff in here. So it's a little I am.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Oh, and it's so convoluted.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: It really is. And I have three children who are almost grown. My youngest is in high school. I've been through this. He went to the preschool at the Charlotte Children's Center, the portion that's in the church, like the pre K. But it was very I mean, I guess the part that I keep struggling with, I keep coming back to is if we have this bill that we're considering this licensure. Correct. And then it seems to me like like whatever issues there might be with it, it seems like this is a path that's needed.

[Rep. Kate Nugent, Member]: Right?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: It seems like many people feel that way, whatever the outcome or however it comes out like that, this is something important to do. And then I hear from people who say that they are. Concerned about the. The burden that the potential hardship that this would place on people who are early, I mean, essentially, who don't maybe have a list of educating children in early childhood who maybe don't have the funds or don't have the time to further their education. So it. When I hear people say that, and then I hear people who are in your position and other, many other childhood educated early childhood educators say that this is something that's necessary. Can

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: you explain that dichotomy to it? Like how those how that reconciles itself? Right. And so I'll reference again the fact that family child care programs that are established before 01/01/2029 continue their work without disruption and effectively and they are grand they would be grandfathered, right? And so that kind of works in the benefit of the people who are currently in the field or people who are going to enter sometime soon in the family childcare capacity. And then also too, change is very hard. And as professionals, it's important that these standards get set, but they get set in a way that aren't being blindsided. We're not just all of a sudden dropping it in their laps and being like, oh, right now, all of a sudden have to go back to school and go get a bachelor's degree or whatever. So that's not what's happening with the arc in the timeline of this bill. Also, too, for people who are adverse to me or nervous about going back to school, there are ways to support them with reentry and with mentorship. And that's also too falls in line with what other professions do. Right? They all have standards. They all have professional development requirements to maintain their license. And I think that that's what we want for Vermont's children is we want people who are continuing their professional development. They're staying up to date on what's the latest in developmentally appropriate practices and standards in the classroom and in the home setting and context as well for those who teach at home. Does that speak at all to Okay? It does.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: Okay. Just trying to figure all of this out. And so then So Do you see this bill that is taking a step toward kind of equalizing the field and the way that the child care providers are. Regarded like as soon as. Can you talk about that a little bit?

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Yes, yes. And yes, absolutely. So I think what I think what it also does is it helps to elevate how the public sees us and the work that we do. Because once upon a time with using nurses as an example, nurses were not held in a super high regard for what they do for their knowledge base for their practices. And that has changed over the course of time. And part of the reason that that has changed over the course of time is because the professionalization structure has elevated that perception of nurses because of creating very clear standardizations that the public is able to navigate. Like you're talking to somebody who's going through some health stuff and when you say like LNA, RN, nurse practitioner, those kinds of terms, people often can recognize that. So that has helped to elevate their profession and also help people understand how their systems work as workers. And so I feel like this bill and the structure within it has potential in order to help do the same kind of scaffolding in terms of public perception and also with how we perceive ourselves because also early childhood educators, there are people like myself who are very proud and I am here and I've got all the street cred. And then there are also people who are kind of feeling a little bit lost and don't see themselves as a professional and they're just starting and they're just trying to navigate their first professional developments. And so providing like a base floor for that entry would also help support people who are coming into the field to with getting a foothold on how valuable our work is and how it is professional work.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: Thank you. Okay. So many more things to say.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Marinate on that, I guess. I got a hit from Rhett Stone. So you marinate on that forward thinking thought of yours.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans, Ranking Member]: Yes. I don't have to say everything that comes into my mind either.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I do every fifth thing.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone, Member]: I was just wondering if our previous witness from the NEA just wanted to offer some clarity about some of the stuff that was mentioned about unions and the NEA just to get their perspective on that commentary that might be beneficial.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Sure, and I actually had a question pertaining that for our witness now because there was that reference point. So maybe I'll do that with this witness shift. Any other questions before I jump into? Okay, so you had brought up that component about like not being represented within the NDA. Correct. Broadly with educators that you're speaking to with this licensure. So wasn't there an attempt and I'm just going back to, like, my my brain in the semi way back machine. Wasn't there an attempt for folks from your sector to try and integrate and join into the NEA a few years ago? Like, I remember it sort of occurring. I don't remember, like, the detail or nuance of what trends.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Yes. But if I'm also dusting off cobwebs from that moment in time correctly, I believe that was not NEA, that was AFT.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Oh, it was AFT. Got you. Yes. Okay. Sorry, wrong acronym. Yeah. Yeah. So to that point, that is a teacher's union. Do you recall how that played out?

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: I just recall that it just went kaput, that things got really, really sticky and that it was just unable to get the traction to move forward because there were a lot of discrepancies between how it would be structured, how early educators would fit in. And it just ended up being almost like a non starter kind of thing.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. Because, I mean, as we move forward into this

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Again, that's just that's me trying to dust off, like, very old cobwebs. Yeah. Respect on that.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. So but, I mean, as we're we're having these conversations about Mhmm. Really affections, you know, status. Right. I it would only be logical that there would be conversations about attaining a professional relationship and representation within a union structure.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Right. And also, like I said, I just want to also emphasize that the primary reason that I did bring up the ECE three and not being represent and not having representation from the NEA is the fact that the ECE three in this bill would provide us who qualify for ECE three with professional recognition and things like that, that the NEA would not be able to provide to us. Because of the way that they are structured and the fact that we don't fit into

[Chair Matthew Birong]: their structure framework. Representative Hooper, I see you have.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: What year was the AFT?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: A fifteen year complex.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: I do not recall off of the top of my head what that would be. Can do any of

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Is anybody in the garage or

[Unidentified Committee Member]: how that one went down? No.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Okay. It's 01/2014,

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: I'm suggesting. Any? No.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I feel like it was a while back.

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: It was a while. It was it's been a hot minute.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. It was yeah. Hence the confidence. Mhmm. Any other questions for this witness? Because it looks like we're going shift back to Mr. Fannington for a hot minute. No?

[Christine Birong Smith, Universal Pre-K Teacher, Lincoln Cooperative Preschool]: Okay. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Yeah.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. Yes.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: So the last question, think it was 12 or 14.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Seemed to be the general case.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: It's a while ago. Cobwebs are dusty in in all fairness to everybody in the room. We were involved in the periphery and your your previous witness, right, was AFT. So that we were involved only on the distance. As it relates to Vermont and ELE and representing early educators, we do so the way unions work is employees, we we would welcome you in our ranks. We have many teachers from pre k to 12 in public school settings, in private school settings, and we would welcome you and your colleagues. The way it's done is under union state law, is employees choose their certified representative, which is a union. And that's done by employer. Unions bargain with employees employer as a certified bargaining representative of those employees in that bargaining unit. So, certainly, your previous witness would be eligible to be in our union, where her colleagues and she choose to be represented by Vermont and EA. So, it's not by virtue of licensure that one is in or out of Vermont and EA. We represent both licensed teachers and education support professionals who are not licensed. So that's paraprofessionals, bus drivers, captchaired workers, custodial folks. So those are that that's the gamut that we cover. And it's merely not merely, but we cover them because those employees have chosen us to represent them in matters of collective bargaining on the terms and conditions of their employment.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Rebecca.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: Thank you. So if Ms. Birong Smith and her fellow workers wanted to be represented by a union, they would just need to get the required number of members to vote to say they would like to join a union, no questions asked.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: Well, I can't speak for the employer. Correct. There may be

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: questions. By your That's a great clarification. I start on general unhousing,

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: so I should know what I'm talking about. So, yes, as a general matter, we're a membership organization. We value our members very much. And whether they're pre k or high school or middle school, we have all types of members, and we welcome them, and we need them, and we value them.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: And that's because they are employed in a private setting. But on the flip side, your public school teachers are automatically No. No.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: No. So public school teachers over the many years have decided to become represented by us. I think we have every single public school. There may be one out there. But we also represent teachers and unlicensed educators in non public schools. So, and that's a growing area, if you will, because there's more need for that outside the public school setting. Needs of kids have changed. And schools are looking to address those in different ways. Those employees in those other settings have come to us seeking representation.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: I think I phrased that poorly. So the public schools already have a path provided for their employees to become union members fairly easily, because it already exists. Teachers and the staff in one school already are members of the union. For somebody like this who works in a smaller private setting that doesn't already have the mechanism set up, they would have to initiate it themselves. Whereas if I'm a new teacher and I go to work at the Berkshire Elementary School, there's already a pathway set up. My colleagues already belong to the union. All I have to do is sign the union card and I'm in. Whereas in this situation, it doesn't already exist. So I think that's what I was getting at, what the difference is.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: And employees who are employed where there is an existing union in Vermont don't have to join the union. Right. That's voluntary. We're a voluntary organization. And likewise, employees in private settings, pre k or otherwise, could join, form a union. And there's a process laid out in state law about how that happens. And that's done regularly, I'll say that.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: Just takes a little more work to set it up.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: Right, because it's already set up in a public school setting, to use your example, where the teacher employed teacher has the option of coming in the door to join the union or not.

[Rep. Lisa Hango, Vice Chair]: Okay. Thank you.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: So that's kind of how we were. We again, I'll just close by saying we do support S206. We just suggest changing. And we value very much and understand the need to professionalize the private or public or the pre k setting generally. We do know and understand that some of the witnesses testify the, difficulty in obtaining and retaining employees in this regard. It's important and to professionalize it, we think it's the right thing to do. Support that. And we support it as the EC or ECP, whatever you want to use it, one and two. We just want to address the confusion by not saying that to three because they're already able to be licensed under the standards.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Okay. Any awesome follow-up round for Mr. Benning? No. Thank you. You got it. Thank you. Happy to Yeah, I figure you're here. Why not? We have a few minutes before lunch. Sure.

[Jennifer Cullen, Director, Vermont Office of Professional Regulation]: Please. Happy to join. Don't have my security blankets, which is my notebooks. I

[Chair Matthew Birong]: got a smear.

[Jennifer Cullen, Director, Vermont Office of Professional Regulation]: I don't have Jennifer Cullen, Director of the Vermont Office of Professional Regulation. Thanks. And great to see so many people engaged in this conversation. And we also love hearing all of your questions. So that's great because everybody really needs to understand the bill, the implications, the pathways, all of that's really important because this is a workforce that's asking for professional regulation. This is a workforce that's asking for ECE3, which I'm going to talk just a little bit about. So, I think it's important that we all understand the implication and the details. So, just to speak very briefly to the Vermont NEA's thoughts or concerns about confusion. You know, I'm a licensed professional. And I know under my license where I can work and what positions I can apply for. I don't think there's a real concern that if somebody goes through a program to become licensed at the Vermont Office of Professional Regulation, that they're going to try to get public school teaching jobs. We're not trying to take public school teachers out of the market. So one of the measures that we've already talked about having when people are applying is a threshold question of, do you want to teach public pre K, or do you want to teach in a public school? If yes, go to AOE. The application stops, hard stop. So we're not only going to have a lot of transparency in the way the law is written and on our website, but also as people are applying for that license, they'll know this is not going to get you into a teaching position in public school. So if there could have been any confusion about that, I think just that application process in and of itself will dispel that. Yes.

[Rep. Kate Nugent, Member]: I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about because it sounds like part of the request is to professionalize occupation so that people, like the public, recognizes the Could you talk about how the title I guess I have a couple of questions. Would you entertain changing the title for that? And or if part of it is recognition on the part of the public. It seems to me that could potentially get in the way of that recognition if the license title is the same for those two pathways?

[Jennifer Cullen, Director, Vermont Office of Professional Regulation]: So, yes, part of this effort is to streamline requirements so that the public knows what the qualifications are of the people who are providing care for their young children, the lead teachers and the assistant teachers in programs across settings. So that's one thing, to streamline those qualifications so that the public will understand that. The word educator was intentionally kind of chosen to be in the title, because these folks are educators. So to take that title out or to change that to something else, you know, Waters was talking about the other day, this undercurrent of a respect. And if we don't call these folks educators, which is what they are, it's really not respecting their professional preparation. So, we felt that that was important to acknowledge and respect professional preparation. And it's an important piece for the public too, to recognize that these are folks who will have qualifications that require education.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: If you're right, everything. Do you

[Unidentified Committee Member]: have a follow-up?

[Rep. Kate Nugent, Member]: No, not yet. Not formed.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Okay, cool. Sorry, I just want to make sure When that

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone, Member]: you talk about people in the field wanting this, could you talk about the survey that has been referenced, who it was sent to when it was sent, and how you gather the information just to make sure that you are getting a diverse set of voices? Because we've only heard one side in here, really, truly, which is, you know, people in the profession who want it. But I know that there's another side. So I'm just wondering if you could talk about that survey, when it was sent, how long it was sent to, like giving us some background information.

[Jennifer Cullen, Director, Vermont Office of Professional Regulation]: Right. So the survey was not a survey that OPR did. So I can't talk about it because that wasn't part of the work that we did. Vermont AEYC, I believe, will be coming back in to testify at some point, or maybe they hope to, but they would be the ones to better answer those questions. I do know that there was a lot of outreach within the profession to people across settings and across the state. And there was testimony actually yesterday in House Human Services about that as well. So I'm sure they'd be happy to speak to that. Something else that I just wanted to mention with respect to the ECE3. There are plenty of people working in early education in the private settings that have bachelor's degrees that aren't AOE like. And those folks want professional regulation. They want professional accountability. They want a professional license. But they don't want to do that through AOE. Like, they are part of this group that wants this professional license. They don't get the benefits that public school teachers get. They don't get retirement. They don't get summers off. It's a different landscape for those folks in significantly different settings. So those are folks that want this ECE3 designation, and they're asking for it. The other thing that I want to also mention is that the National Education Association supports this effort and has been one of the architects of model legislation so that professionalizing the early education workforce can move forward in other states. So while the Vermont chapter of the National Education Association brought some tweaks to this. The model language was in part through the work of the National Education Association. They're one of the organizations that's on the Early Education Professional Excellence Committee Commission. I'm getting the name wrong, but So, they do support this effort, and ECE3 is part of the effort that they support.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: And I got a hand up digitally from Shannon from JPEG. Shannon.

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: Hi guys, thank you for letting me jump in. And I just, so coming at this from the perspective of, oops, I just realized, can people hear me?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yes.

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: Okay, beautiful. Sometimes my headphones really mess everything up. So coming at this from the perspective as well, who run the childcare center. So we serve birth through the youngest infants we can take is six weeks, right? And so what I wanna touch on a little bit is something I had mentioned about this false divide between care and education. When you are taking care of a six week old infant, yes, you are caring for them, but you're also educating them. There is a lot of child development theory and intention that goes into care for children under the age of three, because there is a lot of conversation here about pre K which is valid,

[Jennifer Cullen, Director, Vermont Office of Professional Regulation]: but

[Shannon Edmunds Folsom, Childcare Manager, Jay Peak Resort]: we also need to open the door to respect licensure and the acknowledgement of the immense training that it can take to be all a high quality infant teacher or high quality toddler teacher. 90% of your brain is formed before the age of three. And for example, when there's a licensing requirement that says, any child that is not old enough to hold their own bottle must be held while bottle feeding. That is pretty much a direct reference to Eric Erickson. And the idea of building trusting relationships by modeling trusting relationships by giving them. That's why infant ratios are so small, right? One to four, you can only have four infants per teacher. So to kind of lock them out of potential recognition or licensure simply because well they just work with babies. No, no, no, no, no, no. We need them to work with those babies so that they are regulated and confident and engaged children when they get to pre K, right? All of this is part of a continuum. So I just kind of wanted to sort of put in a plug for our very beloved and very underrepresented infant and toddler teachers as well. So thank you for letting me jump in. Appreciate it.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Of course, not a problem at all.

[Jennifer Cullen, Director, Vermont Office of Professional Regulation]: And I hope that we'll be able to come back again because I know a lot of questions have been raised in different committee meetings when I wasn't able to attend and would love to just provide additional information on questions that have been asked and any lingering questions that you have. And also feel free to just reach out by email if there's any clarification you need on any

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: components of this.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah, we certainly had every intent of having you back in on this to follow-up on the test. Great. Anything else for OPR Director right now before? Yes, Mr. Fanon from

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: the gallery. I'd like to, Jeff Fanon again, Monet Yae. It's true NEA worked on this. I think you're misoverstating. What they agreed to was that NACI rules should be followed, and my understanding from them is that NACI would say you should follow Standards Board National, it's called singular licensing. So suggesting that means that all of a sudden, they would like a dual licensing track for teachers that are eligible under state standards board to also have another track under the ECA. I did not accurate. Can double check that. That's my understanding.

[Jennifer Cullen, Director, Vermont Office of Professional Regulation]: Yeah. We'll make sure that we have our information correct on that before we're back.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Okay. That'd be appreciated. I'd like to understand that it's crisp as possible trajectory on this project. Yes. Alright. Anything else before we hit the time out button for lunch? There's comments. Alright.

[Jeff Fannon, Executive Director, Vermont-NEA]: Thank you.