Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: This committee knows a lot about pre K. I went ahead and made a PowerPoint anyway.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Sometimes Just Maybe some of us know a lot about Freakin.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Sometimes it's nice not to just look at the language and sort of understand it more conceptually. So we can go through this PowerPoint to the extent it's useful, then we can flip over and look at the statue if you want to get more into the words. I think that would

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be helpful. That'd be great. Thank you. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So first, this has a link to the universal pre K program in title 16 that was enacted in 2014. As you know, the program requires all school districts provide access to publicly funded pre K services for not fewer than ten hours a week for thirty five weeks of the year to children who are ages either three and four on the date established by the district of residence for kindergarten eligibility, or who are five years of age, but not yet enrolled in kindergarten, and whose parents or guardian choose to enroll the child in a pre qualified program. So there's no requirement that a child participates in pre K services. So universal program. So this is a question that asked yesterday. And I think because the language that's when we look at

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it, it says the program requires all school districts to provide access. That is not the same as saying I'm asking a question even though it's not going to sound like a question is that that doesn't seem to be the same as requiring all school districts to either provide or arrange for the provision of pre K. Is that true?

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: I think that was accurate.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: There's nothing in the law that requires a public school district to operate a pre K program. Or to arrange for the provision of it,

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: like through

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a private pre K?

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: They have to arrange for the provision of it insofar as they are in control of the money.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: And the trigger for funding is enrollment in the school district. One of the triggers is enrollment for the school district. So to the extent that they are facilitating access, I would say there is a requirement that they need to be able to facilitate the access, but there's no requirement that they partner with one specific program or designate a pre K program in the same way that you could designate a high school, for example.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we know from our Act 76 testimony that there are parts of the state that don't have access to public or private pre K. So which is part of when we were talking yesterday in committee and had the presentation from JFO, they were like, what are the objectives you're trying to achieve with what changes? And I know for this committee, it's universal access and actually putting somebody in charge of making sure that there is pre K in each however districts are gonna be defined. So, okay, I think that makes it somewhat clear.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: There is language in statute that we look at in one of the slides. But it sort of addresses your point, but probably not to the extent you would like it to, which is that it acknowledges that if a region of the state doesn't have sufficient pre K, that doesn't put the requirement on the school district to create something, but that would sort of trigger a requirement for AOE and AHS. And I want to say the Building Bright Futures Advisory Council to work with public and private pre qualified providers in the region to address the fact that there is not sufficient. So we can look at that, but I don't think it probably addresses the issue the way you'd like to see it addressed. Yeah. Pre qualified programs. A school district can choose to operate its own pre qualified pre K program, but it's not required to do so. And a parent or guardian seeking to enroll a pre K child in Vermont's universal pre K program can choose between a private pre qualified program or a public pre qualified program. And that public program can either be outside the student's district of residence or inside the student's district of residence if the district has chosen to operate a program. So the parent can choose if there is a program in the district to stay in the district if their school district. But if their district of residence isn't offering a public program, they could go to a public program in another district if there's space or choose a public, sorry, a private pre qualified provider. So there are some choices for families. If a private pre qualified program or public pre qualified program outside of the student's district of residence is selected by the student's parent or guardian, the school district of residence must pay the statewide pre K tuition rate to the selected pre qualified program. So the money is passing through the school district of residence, even if the child is going to a public program outside of the child's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: school district of residence or private program. And when a child is enrolled in either a If the school district is paying tuition someplace, whether it's a public or private, Is that child get to be added to the average weighted daily membership?

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: We'll get to that. Okay. Yes. And it depends on how many hours they are being funded for. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So here's your question. There's insufficient pre K to meet the demand in a region. There's no obligation for school district to begin or expand programming. However, the statute directs AOE, AHS, Building Bright Futures Council to collaborate with school districts, private providers in the region affected to develop a regional plan to expand capacity. So a question would be whether any of these regional plans are

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, have they happened? Yeah, because we know that there are pre K deserts in the state. Okay, good question to ask them. All right.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: And then I have a slide just to sort of pause and talk about what does pre qualification mean? Because we know that this ten hours can only be used at pre qualified public or private providers, and that means something very specific. So under the statute, both AHS and AOE are required to develop joint rules to govern what pre qualification means. And in statute, there are some minimum quality standards that have to be in the rule for determining what prequalification is. So to be prequalified, have to, the program has to either be accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, or it's a program that has four stars from CDD's star system, or it's a program that has three stars with a provider plan that has been approved by both DCF and AOE to move into compliance with four stars. So this is just the prequalification for private providers?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is a list for both. It's a list for both.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And it's an or.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So school districts have to be accredited by NAEYC? Or. Or.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Have Or. Four stars.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: The that's four. Have the statue, hang on. Do want me to switch it?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, need the accreditation and you need four stars.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: No, it's either

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: be accredited or be, accreditation is an automatic high quality.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Very few have accreditations. Pretty high bar.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You did say or there. That's why I

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: placed That's my

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That should be an or there, Katie.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: No, Katie has it correct. It's a list of three and so the or is only gonna appear in the second to last line. So it's for all ors but we don't draft and conventionally put an or after every line, right?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh thank you. They're all ors. We put the conjunction at the last one. But here is the language now that we've beat that to death. So we have C1. This is what is supposed to be in the rules. A program of pre K education, whether provided by a school district or private provider, shall have received. NAIC accreditation, four stars or three stars, and moving into compliance with a plan approved by DCF and

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just realized I shut off the microphone during break, but Lori's on it. I missed a couple of seconds.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Switching documents. Okay. Also in these rules requires a licensed provider must employ or contract for the services of at least one teacher who is licensed and endorsed an early childhood education or an early childhood special education. And that language is always language that I think we get questions about, which is that the licensed provider must employ or contract for the services, but it doesn't say must teach or provide educational instruction.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so in a school district, it wouldn't be required for them to have a licensed teacher in the classroom?

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: I think some of that would depend on their contracts. If it's the school district providing it, they're going to have collectively bargained contracts. And so there may be some provisions about licensure there. There's also a statute and I don't know off the top of my head, but I can look at it, that requires anyone teaching in a public school to be licensed by the professional educators. I can't remember if it includes pre K, so I will verify that. But we do get questions about this all the time, mainly in relation to the private programs.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. And I was familiar that they I mean, the way it's worded, it doesn't even necessarily say they have to be in the building. But but I guess the the thing that runs through my head is, you know, I I hear in this building a lot that there are different criteria for public than there is for private. And what I'm seeing is that the criteria are the same, but there could be other influencing factors like collective bargaining agreements or

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: How do I thread this needle? I think that conversation is largely about the K-twelve system, the difference between public and private regulations?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, not from the people that I talk to.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Are Not that too. Yeah.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: Go ahead. Sorry. No, go ahead.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm wondering if some of it has to do with CDD rules around health and safety requirements. CDD has particular ratios for staff to children, depending on the age of the children and special requirements, you know, just regarding, I don't know, fire requirements specific for children of that age. And I wonder if AOE's similar rules are more geared for an older population and not specifically targeted for the pre K population in the same way. And I wonder if that is where some of

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the discrepancy is coming from. That's just a guess. It's mostly been brought up. Of course, there was back several years ago, there was all of that, hullabaloo about that. But mostly now what I hear from other members in the building is about the professional qualifications of the people in the classroom as being the differentiating between public and private.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: But as you noted, if I may, the statute does not require this for a school either. That's that's Which is what I'm hearing that. Yeah. The narrative is that the schools have to have a teacher, a licensed teacher in the classroom, but the statute does not require that. This statute does,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the other statute might.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Right, if they do, it's not because of the pre K statute. It's for other reasons, which is I think the point you're

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: trying Right. To because there is a narrative in the building that we set up UPK to be different between public and private. And it doesn't appear that that actually is true.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Who is providing care in a childcare facility is also governed by CDD rules and wouldn't apply to pre K that's being provided by a public provider in a public school. So there is a distinction there. This committee may have a chance to dive into that very deeply. There's a licensure bill for childcare providers that's moving through the Senate right now. And if that ends up here, that's certainly something that really goes into what the eligibility requirements are. And I'm sure you'll hear from folks in the education field about how those requirements differ from their own requirements.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Fantastic. A question about the Are you saying that the CDD rules are not applicable in the public school setting?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: They are applicable to programs that are regulated by CDD. So I would say pre K education that's provided by a public school is regulated by AOE, but that's only ten hours. So if there is a childcare program that sort of provide, it's under contract, let's say with the school district to come in and provide care in a public setting, they are still regulated by CDD. So then CDD's rules would attach.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But if a school district simply provides ten hours a week for thirty five weeks a year, that program is not regulated by CBD.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I would say that's correct.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you have a different take

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: on that?

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't have a different take under a plain reading of the law. I would say it depends on if a school district has contacted CDD to see if they can be licensed in order to provide childcare. I don't know what the rules say, whether there's any prohibition on

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Licensing public schools.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, school district would be the organization running the program. I don't know if there are any examples in the field of a public school running a licensed childcare, operating a licensed childcare program?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sorry, I was distracted for a moment. What did you just say in that last one,

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the reason I personally, I won't speak for Katie, I'm struggling with this question is because the pre K statute does not require a public school that is operating a pre K program to be licensed by CDD. And I don't know if there is a public school district that operates a program that is licensed by CDD.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: For pre K? There are public schools operating CCFAC, we learned yesterday.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I have also heard that anecdotally, but I have yet to see how that operates. Yeah, I don't

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: really understand exactly how it operates either.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: What those agreements look like, what that regulation looks like, what's the split between the school day and the licensed childcare day. All of if there are folks who are actually doing it, they would be the best folks to speak to you on how that works because the law does not provide clearly for that scenario.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. How am I supposed to do how am supposed to get this done before CrossOver?

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: Only us. I know.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: All he says, I hope you have

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a good break, Katie. I don't know what you're doing on break. Not bad.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: This last bullet is about family childcare homes. So a registered home provider who is not licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or early childhood special education shall receive regular active supervision and training from a teacher who is licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or early childhood special education. So again, that's specific to the family childcare home.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: And now we get to average daily membership, weights, education funding, all the dense stuff. Actually, what we just talked about was pretty dense. Okay, so school districts under current law may include a pre K student as one full time equivalent pupil in their average daily membership count. Remember, the average daily membership count is what's used in the equation that ends up determining your tax rate. It is one small part of it, and it is manipulated along that equation. So pre K kiddos are counted in their school district's ADM if they are receiving ten or more hours in pre K services. If they are receiving between six and less than ten hours, then it's a prorated pupil. So it would be instead of counting one kiddo, you'd be counting 0.6, let's say. And if the kiddo is receiving less than six hours a week, they are not counted in the ADM. And when I say receiving, it's under our UPK program. So they are receiving publicly funded pre kindergarten education. Under current law, so we add everyone up and then to account for the different costs associated with different parts of our education system, because theoretically, different kiddos, whether it's on the timeline of their education or based on their individual characteristics require different needs, which may translate to different educational costs. So we apply weights to different categories depending on those characteristics. So under current law, we have what are called grade level weights where elementary, middle and high school students are weighted and also pre K students are weighted. And pre K students have a negative weight, negative 0.54. So you would take that total number of pre K students, and then you would multiply that times negative 0.54, and that's the number of pre K students that gets factored into your school budget. So

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I wanna make sure I understand this. So in the first bullet, it says you get to count them as one full time equivalent, then you adjust that by minus 0.54? Correct. Okay. Why don't we just say it's, they get to count as zero point I four

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: am not your education administrator. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right. I just wanna make sure I understood how that worked. Okay. Go ahead, Anne.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And again, just to understand, I think it's clear here, so if a school district is providing more than ten hours, there's no difference in what that pupil is. If they're providing ten versus full time,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Correct. It's 0.5

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: And there is a provision. I don't think we have it on one of our slides, but there is a provision in Section eight twenty nine, your pre K statute, that basically requires school districts to wrap up all their pre K costs in their school budget. So that's going to include the ten hours a week that they are allocating, but also if they're running a program for more than ten hours, those costs are reflected in school budgets.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Which is the equity issue we were trying to start to unravel in Act 76, and that work group had a hard time. Lots of things were in transition at that point in time Because that was the I mean, that's one of the things that I don't don't know if we're gonna be able to solve in, you know, the the work that we're trying to do now. But it's not fair for public dollars to be paying for full time pre K, all of us in one district, and then kids in some other district don't have access to any. And that was the whole equity issue that we were trying to we unlocked the fact that it exists, but we couldn't do anything about it. And I am struggling to figure out how we would do still how we would do something about it unless we require the school district to provide or arrange for the provision of pre K.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Universal means something very different, district to district.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Could either be

[Unidentified Committee Member]: zero, it could be ten hours, or it could be forty hours or anywhere in between.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Yeah. Zero kids and three kids and 15 kids or 200. Right?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Universal for access, but it's not universally the same benefit.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But it's not even universal for access.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, in theory. Theoretically. It doesn't mean it's happening, but in theory

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The state will pay for it if you can find it. Okay. Alright. Thank you.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: I just mentioned one thing about act 73. Yeah. Act 73 keeps the pre K weight, but then you have it does away with the grade level weights for everything else. So no longer under the foundation formula that Act 73 has contingently established would a high school student receive any extra weight. Act 73 retains the pre K weight as is, but then there's some legislative attempts there about establishing an appropriate weight, which do with that what you may.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: During this session, right? During this session.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're supposed to be doing that. Yeah. Who

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: who is supposed to do that? The last

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: section guys. Wee's wee's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of me has been has been looking at that. Yeah. There is some discussion about whether to have a flat, just a flat amount. Can't remember the term that

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: was- Cat aid. Thank you. Cat oracle aid.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There's lots of discussion happening between committees about, for me, if pre K is education, if it's offered in a public school, and if there is what you heard yesterday, the chair of the committee on education just wanted to separate out. So you get education funding if it's in the school, but you don't get education funding even if you're licensed and offering the same service if it's in private, that would be under CCVAP, which we know is in a deficit situation at this point in time because it's oversubscribed, I guess, if you will. Yeah, I don't know. I think I'm going to quit. It's been hard. I know. Yeah, go ahead Anne.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So, the term categorical aid sounds familiar in this sense. Is that what we use for special ed?

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so it's all of those off JFO if you're watching. They don't like it when we use this term but it's off the top of the Ed Fund. It's school meals, it's transportation reimbursement, it's special education, it's all of those things that not that come off the top of the Ed Fund. Yes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And a pre K student would have additional weight attached to them if they were a child with a disability. Yes. Income

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: under our, under our yes. If you move to categorical aid, you're not applying weights to categorical aid. I don't know how you figured. That would have to be, well, it would be a policy choice on whether or not you want to factor those differentiations into how that category is calculated.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: A question regarding Act 73 and what we have to do this field. Because we talked about it as and there was a slide in the presentation we had yesterday, intent, and maybe this is me just not yet understanding those parts of the bills. So what do we have to do? The intent language includes establishing an appropriate weight, again, whatever that means. But what do we have to do?

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: It depends on what your policy objectives are. The intent language is not binding language, it is aspirational. So it does not require anything. If your goal is to make everything work that's in Act 73, I think pre K is an outstanding policy question of how it is captured in the foundation formula and any policy choices that would need to go along with that, a little bit of a chicken or the egg situation, whether you make the programmatic policy choices or the funding choice. But related to pre k and the weight, it's just aspirational language.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Did we make any specific policy choices in act 73 related to pre k?

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: Other than that intent language and keeping the weight the same, no.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: What's that? TBD. We're done with pre K. Yeah, I know. That was funny. He's just so humorous. Okay,

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: the statute permits a private provider to receive additional payment directly from a parent or guardian only for pre K education in excess of the hours paid for by the district or for childcare services. And a private provider is not bound by the statewide rate when determining the rates that will charge for a parent or guardian for additional pre K services. So there's another piece of inequity.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So private providers can charge for pre K in excess of the ten hours. If you're getting more than ten hours of pre K in a public school, the taxpayers are all paying for it. Another inequity. Yeah. So

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: when this was first set up, then it was trying to answer a lot of questions, It seems to me that it didn't succeed entirely in providing universal access for Vermont kids. And so what I'm hearing, and not just today, but in everything, is that the big question is, is the state going to get behind providing pre K for every child or just a mechanism by which that child's education can be paid for. And then if we're gonna choose the mechanism for a piece, which, how are we gonna do that? And right now we've set up so they can do it publicly or privately, but strikes me there are lots of problems with that, with private and public.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So you'll learn more from witnesses about how that's considered best practice in the country. I understand. It complicates it tremendously. And with stuff like this, complicates it as well because we have some parents who are getting access to, let's just say, thirty or thirty five hours of pre K at no cost other than paying their taxes. And then other folks who are paying those same taxes for that education and then are being charged extra if they're getting extra pre K at a private provider.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Exactly, I totally get it. It strikes me that know, when you say, what's best practice, I get that. There are a lot of, many other kinds of scenarios you could point to where best practice is what we're after, but we can't afford that. We can't even pretend that

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we can put it I not even the practical on this?

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Yeah, yeah, exactly. I don't know. That seems like, yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But we have to also be cognizant of the fact that we have a lot of private pre K out there. 60%, it's something like that, of our kids are getting their pre K in the private setting. And it is also sustaining those private businesses as well. Absolutely. So it's Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The reason I asked about what's required of us in x 70 '3 on this global sort of meta policy issue is what are we trying to achieve? And this is a question I have that I'll raise in the licensure issue is what are we trying to achieve? And if it's kindergarten readiness, Vermont is doing fairly well in that question. So what sort of change and upheaval do we wanna create for a system that's achieving 85% kindergarten readiness, which I think ranks well nationally.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're doing very well on kindergarten readiness. It's kinda after kindergarten where things kinda like fall apart. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, that certainly I I think one of the things that we need to talk about as committee is kind of like outline what are we trying to achieve with any particular change. Certainly, school readiness is one of the things that would be at the top of the list, but we're already doing well there. Well, we're doing well. And so then we gotta be careful about how we upset the apple cart.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's what I was kind of

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: thinking Our policy choices here will have, no matter what level we pull, it's going to have an impact somewhere else. So balancing that, and I think that might be kind of part of your kind of getting overwhelmed with the amount of time we have, is really considering how our policy choices might destabilize a system that is producing outcomes in certain areas. I think equity and equitable access has always been for years, has been an issue in our, at least for us.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That would be one of my

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: next Right, that's one of like the next things, right?

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: To get statewide access.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, but

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: again, that statewide access, by creating it, are we risking destabilizing? And I don't know the answer to that question, but I think that's the big question and kind of prioritizing, like when Doug was talking about, are we trying, in Act 73, what do we have to do? And then thinking about, can we just chunk out, okay, if these are our priorities or things that we, in a perfect world, would want to fix about the system, can we take one of those and address them in the time that we have?

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: That's what I would like

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to add.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Right, because we're not going to have time to really, but we have to kind of come to agreement as to what that priority is that we're going to work on. Is it going

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to be access? Is it going

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: to be the weights, the number? Is it

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: going to be Yeah, I don't think we need to worry about the weights as much. But do think that when I listen to other people in the education committee, I hear one of their goals is to remove costs from the Ed Fund. And, know, I guess at what cost? Because then that becomes the destabilizer for the out for the out well, not just the private for the kids because that's the outcome that we're achieving is a high rate of kindergarten readiness. And if you remove that funding source, then we reduce kindergarten readiness. And so that that doesn't seem to be a logical thing if we're thinking about the kids and that being sort of the ultimate readiness.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: For me, the point that you emphasized when we were on slide four of the presentation about whether AOE, AHS and BBF are working on developing regional plans. What does that look like? I would love to hear testimony on that because that seems like an area where we have an opportunity of raising even higher our kindergarten readiness if we can get services into communities and parts of the state where they don't have it. Yeah. And then otherwise, upset the apple cart pressing a balloon and other things happen. Whatever metaphor we wanna use, we've gotta be very careful on that. Shifting, even if we're not deciding weights here, how the payments are made out into the system, I think we do wanna keep an eye on because we don't want that current mixed delivery system that we have. It's a It's a delicate balance, what we have right now, but it seems to be working at least from the measure of kindergarten readiness.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I also wonder if, as far as equitable access goes, I wonder if given our limited time, if we can think of creative ways of making progress in that area, right? Because just like anything in this building, I think things take time and if we can come up with an elegant plan to maybe formalize some of it, and I don't know the details of what these three entities do right now, I think that's for us to find out, but maybe amp that up a bit and get better information and data on what is actually happening on ensuring equitable access across the state and what are the steps that can be taken to improve that rather than solving it. Yeah, well,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we heard yesterday that AOE doesn't actually have data on what school districts provide what for how long, and whether it's in the building or not in the building.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: And I'll also note that

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: there- That may be the only progress we're able to make is

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: requiring I don't know. We heard in testimony that BBF has a grant that will help with that, and I was told that that is not true,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that the grant that they have JFO isn't said that yesterday. Yeah, so That's not what

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: they're That's not, no, it's not solving the data issue. It might make some marginal progress there, but it's not solving the data issue. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So then we have this last, it goes from the current system is the Ed Fund going to both the pre qualified public and pre qualified private. Alright. So I I think so we're not taking any other witnesses on this particular issue before break, but we'll be spending some intensive time on this when we get back. And we had invited AOE this week, but they declined. They want to come after the break. And I I do have some upcoming meetings with the speaker and and the chairs of education and ways and means to Right now, I feel like we got sort of three different things even potentially happening, and that is going to drive people to the end of the table. That's not going to be good for them. And it won't be good for us because then we'll be working at cross purposes. So it feels like we need to come up with what is the overall goal and the three committees need to agree on what that overall goal is. And then we can work at how we figure that, how we figure out our part in helping to achieve that, which I don't think will be that easy. And that I'm not sure what form this is going to take. I'm not sure if we're going to send a memo to education and ways and means and saying, this is our this is where we're headed in terms of the goal that we were trying to achieve and how we think we should go about it or whether we're gonna be actually asking for language and some sort of committee bill that then they will add on to. At the beginning of the session, the speaker was looking for a separate bill on pre K. I don't know if that's still I've heard different things about that. So now I'm not sure if that's the case or not. So I guess from our perspective, it'd be easier for us to kinda take testimony, give our feedback, and let other people develop language.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: This isn't my area, so For the week after, there was an expression that a former speaker used and wondering if it would apply here for members. It's called Bring Your Jammies.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We will definitely be having long days on the week after. Yeah. Thank you, Katie. Thank you. So, yeah, we'll be starting earlier and ending later. And we will be coming back after the floor. So that's just to be prepared for that. Because we have three big topics that we have to move on. Beth, any other questions for Beth? Thank Thank you very much. It was very helpful. I sent mine to the superintendent to help me. I'm not an educator. Okay, folks. So after floor I mean, after lunch, we are gonna be taking a look at the latest version of the homelessness bill. And we're also going to be reviewing with KDH five forty five. The Senate has passed H five forty five now. That's the bill that Zon reported on around immunizations. I don't think there are any big changes on that. But it didn't appear on the notice calendar, which I'm kind of surprised about. But Zon, I think you should be prepared to give our committees you know, report back on the senate changes. It'll probably be on Friday, but it could be as early as tomorrow depending on how the if I haven't checked the calendar just, like, momentarily. It may have appeared. It hadn't been sent over from the Senate yet.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: So the process is we'll hear about it today and then we'll vote again whether or not we are willing to accept it as it stands. If we are, whether we're Concur or not concur. And then happens.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know, can change a lot.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: It didn't really, they just reordered some things mostly. The one section I don't get about deleting, I have to- Yeah. Sorry about that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we're gonna hear from Katie about that this afternoon. And so then be prepared to take a vote on that this afternoon so that when it does appear on the calendar, Zon will be able to stand up and give our vote about whether we're conferring or not. We also, Zon, as part of that process, you you give a brief explanation of what changed in the senate version and then our vote. Okay. So I'll see y'all after lunch.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And help me.