Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Okay. Welcome back, folks, this afternoon. This is the Hassam and Services Committee. And this afternoon, we are taking up, pre K education, early childhood learning. And we, are happy to welcome, the folks from Building Bright Futures, and other witnesses this afternoon. And, I'm sure that we'll be joined by the rest of our committee in short orders, but we're already a few minutes behind, and I want to give you your due time. So welcome. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Thanks, For the record, I'm Doctor. Morgan Frostman, the executive director of Blade and Bright Futures. And this is our first time in a committee session, which is very exciting and I'm joined by my colleague, For the record, Joanne Lebonso, Research and Data Director at Building Bright Futures. Because it's our first time in committee, we are going to do a very brief overview of Building Ready Futures and our role in the system. So for those of you that may have to spend as much time with me, are Vermont's Early Childhood State Advisory Council and we are named both state and federal statute as the primary counsel to the legislature and the governor on children and families prenatals at age eight. And a part of our role, we have many charges, but some of the ones that we like to highlight are the way we are responsible for convening and elevating family voice, monitoring the entire system and really understanding what's happening on the ground, both qualitatively and quantitatively. And that includes both childcare and early childhood education, as well as the broader system that supports kids and families. I do like to say I am not a lobbyist. Our organization is a non partisan entity that is here to support you based on the strategic plan and the vision for children and families and based on evidence and family beliefs. And I think it's always important to just show who is on our paperwork as a part of this work. So here's a formal 23 governor, committee members, state advisory council. There's members of the administration and some non voting members administration. We do have representatives from both the House and Senate. So representative, there are concerts on the board for the House. And then we have a range of at large members who are from a range of different entities supporting different families or who are working in that arena across the state of Maryland. One of the most exciting things for the early childhood system was the passage of the early childhood strategic plan. So every five years we update the vision and strategy based on all of the data, based on the needs of families. And what this strategic plan serves as is essentially a plan of plans or a roadmap for kids and families for the next five years. And the way that this was built was through a range of really amazing conversations with Vermonters over 200 people across the state having community conversations, letters, day in the life experiences, but then also a ton of mixed methods review. So we reviewed qualitative data, quantitative data over the last five years and merged all of that information into a formal statewide strategic plan. So we'll send that document along to you again so that you have access to it. But this committee in particular instrumental in helping us think about what are those priorities? How do you move this work forward? And there are so many different areas within that strategic plan that have been critical to your work, whether it's basic needs, health and safety, thinking about how we support families in different communities, thinking about our own child and workforce and what opportunities kids and families have, and how to ensure that we have a little resource system. One of the things that we wanted to do just as a quick level set, since we are talking so much about pre K today, is do a little bit of level setting with the committee, maybe this group out of most of our committees that we have been talking with this about do have that baseline understanding, but just so that we're all on same the page, a couple of key points here. The first is that as we're thinking about our current pre K system in the state, we are a publicly funded program. We offer 10 a week of pre K, thirty five weeks a year to three, four year olds and five year olds not yet enrolled in kindergarten. It is an affordable program so parents are able to choose where their children enroll and the funding follows the child. One of the core components of pre K in Vermont is that it operates in a mixed delivery system, which is both a mix of public schools and a community based program. So it can be private, nonprofit programs, childcare centers, head start programs, and family child care homes. The program right now is GBA administered by the agency of education and the child development division. And we currently operate a really high quality program across the state with licensed educators and a curriculum that's very closely aligned with the Vermont Early Learning Standards. Before we jump into the full data, we wanted to orient you to specifically where in that strategic plan, that next five year vision and strategy, pre K shows up. And so in the strategic plan, there are a range of key elements there. I'm not going to go through all of them. But the top three things that I want to put a thought out to be about that vision for Pre K is maintaining equitable access or building equitable access to Pre K to three, four, and five year olds not yet eligible for kindergarten in a mixed delivery model. Focusing on aligning funding so that families are able to experience seamless services across settings. And then as part of Act 73, making sure that we're prioritizing. And again, let's make sure that we are not having our pre K or youngest learners, especially in that pre K to grade three area, get lost in the context of that transformation.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Morgan, I'm sorry to interrupt. Realized I didn't ask you at the beginning. Sure. How do you want to take any questions that might come up? By all means, jump Okay, all right. So I'm just letting committee members know. All right. Thank you. So I have one.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: It's actually on the previous slide.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Down at the at the I I don't have any distinction about high quality, but I think it's actually important to know that there is differentiation on licensed educators between the public and the private. You elaborate a little bit on that now? Sure.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: So when you're saying licensed educators, what is required across all settings is that a licensed educator be on-site for the ten hours a week across all programs. Right now, we don't have a beautiful way of capturing the total number of hours that children are in pre K settings. We know that they're receiving ten hours and how many are enrolled in that ten hours a week. But we don't have the ability to look across those settings, whether it's public or community based programs, at the number of hours they're receiving or when that educator would be in those spaces providing So is it a fair assumption that if you're in a public pre K in the public school system that there is a licensed educator

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: in the classroom?

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: I would want to defer to both Secretary Saunders and to Deputy Commissioner McLaughlin on that. I know that the rules across the board are that a licensed educator is on-site for both. It is likely that in both settings, we are having licensed educators there for more than ten hours, but I cannot.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Okay. One of the things that we hear from other colleagues in the building is that there's a differentiation. We have learned, committee remember, that when we looked at the statute that there's actually no distinction between public and private. But it seems, at least anecdotally, what we hear is that in the public school system, there are licensed pre K teachers in the classrooms when the students are in the classrooms. In private pre K, sometimes there are, sometimes there aren't in the classroom, but they're in the space in the building, right, on-site. Okay. Think it's one of those differences for us to be aware of as a committee and to ask more questions of when we speak to deputy commissioner and the secretary. Okay, thank you. Yeah.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Okay, so stemming from the strategic plan, the way that we think about both the vision and strategy and annual policy recommendations that come from the Early Childhood State Advisory Council network is that the five year vision sets the tone and the strategy and what works with big boards. And then policy recommendations come on an annual basis. So stemming from that strategic plan, what you're seeing is a range of concrete recommendations around pre K as part of education transformation. And I think that some of these are really important to call out in understanding both the context but also where the State Advisory Council Network and the Pre Kindergarten Education Implementation Committee had similar archives. So just to draw a line there. So in the policy recs for this year, they were allocated again to really ensure access to maintain programmatic service for threes, fours, and five year olds not yet eligible for kindergarten in a mixed delivery model. The second was really to establish appropriate pre K weighting within the state's funding formula. I think as we've been thinking about education transformation in a range of ways that folks have been thinking about funding, the ultimate goal in the strategic plan is to establish appropriate funding to support universal access that reflects the true cost of pre K. And then the final piece that I think this committee has been really prioritizing is how do we prioritize equitable access? And what does that mean as we consider rural and broader communities?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: So a question for you, again. So I think when, at least from our work on Act 76, these are still very consistent with what we were looking for from the Pre K Implementation Committee. And we got a report, but it wasn't particularly helpful, I'm just going to say. And there was a lot of circumstances around that. Let's gonna

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: show you that report. We have that next just so that folks can be reminded on the email.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: It was there. Yeah. It was there. So, I mean, you know the environment that we're in now. And so this is obviously that this is if we could afford to do all of this, that's what we would want to do. If we could achieve part of number one, establishing an appropriate funding formula or a system, which I don't think is gonna be a waiting system, and prioritizing access that gives us 80% of the recommendations. I know it's not 100%, but it feels like it moves us in the direction that you have, through the data gathering and the input process that you all have undertaken over really an extended period of time, it moves us closer. So I just I guess not I know you're this is you're putting out there what has come up through the the data gathering process. And I guess what would be the reaction if they were able to increase hours for four year olds, establish a solid funding system for pre K that equalizes the private and the public, which I'm not sure everybody in the room understands that the private gets much less than the public at this point in time in terms of how that works. And provide actually a locus of responsibility to assure that there is either provided by the school district or arranged for by the school district for so that pre K right now is not universal. I think everybody in the room probably knows that. And that was one of the main issues that we had in terms of equity of access when we did '76. But I am seeing some trade offs in that, and that is potentially going to be with three year olds. So I just I want to be sort of transparent that that's what's going be on the table. I'm just wondering what the reaction would be to that.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: It's a great question. And I think of the qualitative data that we'll present later is actually coming from all of that information gathering, both what happened under ACCEV-six levels, so what happened during PEIC, the Health Reveal Invitation Committee, where we did a really robust survey of folks across the state. Of all other things we could prioritize in moving towards equitable access to free pay, moving towards all of these recommendations, what would you prioritize? And I think you'll also hear this from Deputy Commissioner McLaughlin and from the Secretary of Education that the one thing that that committee was so concrete about, the only area of true consensus across the board was maintaining the benefit for three year olds. So I think that what you will likely hear is partners across the state, both in private and community based programs and also public schools, a really intense reaction to what it would mean to remove three year olds. And I think there's a range of reasons why they feel that way. Sometimes they might be talking about quality or business models or workforce. Right? I think there's a range of reasons, but I think there will be a pretty intense reaction from the field as a whole around what it would mean to essentially expand the access for four year olds, but at the expense of those hours for three year olds.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: So I guess I wanna challenge that a little bit. Not that people will have a strong reaction to it, but the thing that I wanna challenge is that we're spending a huge amount, hundreds of millions of dollars, investing in the early education system. And guess those three year olds would still have access to very high quality early education through CCFAP and childcare, where the majority of the three year olds are getting their pre K now. So I feel a little bit like that's not saying at the expense of, but this is what you would get over here, where you're gonna have some of the same learning opportunities. So but that's how it's helpful to hear that that that would that that would be the impression and the reaction.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: I think that would largely be the reaction. But I also think that there's some data that we wanna show you that hasn't been published yet. So this committee is getting the first lay of the land, which is exciting, on what the breakdown of an award looks like across public and community engaged programs, which is new. But the thing that I have consistently heard specific to three year olds is that not all three year olds would get access to either pre K or childcare because they might not be eligible at first CFAB. Or they might be already receiving pre K in a public school and now he's transitioning into childcare.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Well, that's great. If you have data on that, want that's great.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: To

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: make sure I'm being fair that you're all asking the right questions. And what are the important, not trade offs, but how do we make a decision about what's most important and what we maintain and how we move forward? Because we do have funding challenges. We do have an issue with that being able access. So what are those priorities?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I want to be transparent to say that the first priority for me in leading this committee is that we have equitable access across the state. And that's a holdover from Act 76 and the whole purpose of the PEIC, one of the main purposes of the PEIC. So when we're talking about public education, it has to be equitable access. Now, families make choices about whether or not they want that.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Can I just clarify your priority?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Is it equitable access for three four year olds?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: It's equitable access to pre K, the decision about What age. What age is pending. Is pending. Okay. Yeah. So I'm just saying that to have responsible entity right now, there's no responsible entity. It's just all that the pre k statute says is the state will pay for it if you can get it. That's not okay. It's not okay that you can get full time pre K in some communities and you have zero access in other communities. And that really is kind of like decisions that local school districts make either consciously or sometimes not even consciously. It just is There's space limitations, there are financial limitations, there's a lot of different things.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Yeah. Great question. And I do think it's really important for the committee to know that the right questions are being asked and you're prioritizing the things that matter. The good news is that the committee does get to see data before anyone else on pre K. So we've been working very closely with the Great Features, the Child Development Division, the Agency of Education, to do a deep dive on the pre K data. So this is not yet public in any reports that you have seen, but will be soon. And part of the reason for that is that over the past three years and now in this current year, we've written federal grants to bring in additional funding and support and capacity for both the agencies and Build a Great Futures to do this data work. I'm thinking specifically about the agency of education and the fact that it's not just pivoting away and reprioritizing, but actually having a person who is dedicated to early childhood data in those spaces. So it's really incredible that we now have the ability to have access to this data to answer very basic questions. But we didn't even have this data when we testified in ways and means in terms of how we were thinking about this one. And a lot of it is based on the key questions that are from leadership. So let me walk you through what's on the screen right now. A couple of notes and caveats before you are thinking critically about moving bars. Previously, when we talked about Pre K access, we would come into the room and say, here's what we know about license capacity. So we would come in and say, there's a split between public and private, and here's the percentage of license capacity because that's the best indicator that we had of where kids were at any given time, but it wasn't really a true reflection of supply. So what we're going to talk about this morning is enrollment data. And so now we're actually seeing a really clear picture of what pre K participation looks like for three year olds and four year olds in each setting. And we can also look at other types of student characteristics like IEP status.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: That is great because honestly, this is the first time in the When did we pass Act 76? Never thought.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: That was in '23.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: '23. Yeah. Okay. So first time in four years because we worked on that bill for a long time. First time in four years that we've been able to get an answer to this question. And it's great. And so it dispels also the and it was probably based on the license capacity, but it would we were told previously a two thirds, one third split, and it's essentially a fifty fifty different by age, but that's that's and are these, you know, like one student is one student, not like 0.48 of student or 0.47. Yeah, okay.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: I just want to make sure. Great questions. And just to be clear, again, capacity is different from enrollment. And so this is such critical and essential data because what this tells us is not how many slots we're estimating, but how many kids are actually enrolled in those programs. So yes, what you're seeing on the right side of the screen is that we're seeing a pretty even split in enrollment for children in both community based settings and in school based settings. And before we dive into more of what is on that slide, I also want just state that the new data is actually showing the importance of how things are relying on community settings and public schools for both age ranges across the board. And as we're thinking about how those sectors are trying to meet demand and some of the newer data that we'll show in the next slide, we'll show you that variation across the state, because we don't have. And how was this data obtained? Did you say that and

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I missed it? Was it a survey or what was it? How was it?

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: So this is data that is captured by the agency of education. And now we have been able to both validate that information in a different way with teams. So now BDF, CDD, and AOE are meeting consistently biweekly to review data on pre K and are using preschool development grant funds for one year to be able to do some of this work together. So yes, this is information that is captured through the agency of education and then in partnership with those three entities. So I would

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: imagine that DCF, AOE wouldn't necessarily have the community based enrollment. Is that from DCF?

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: AOE do.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: They do. They have both. Okay. Go ahead, representative.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Is there information on the split of the community based between center based and home based providers?

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Not at the moment in our slides right now, but that's a really important question because when we think about Head Start in particular, it's really important, especially as we're thinking about IEP status and other characteristics of kids to be able to look across those settings. So not in what I'm presenting today, but it is something that we can look at with agencies. Okay, so I'm sorry. I'm going see it. Go ahead, Doug. Oh, no, Zon.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: I just need to understand what

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: the light blue and dark blue represents

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: to get to 3717.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: So I'm going walk you through just So a first, before we dive into all of the bars, one important thing about the way we've measured access is in partnership with Near. So what we've seen as we situate Vermont in the national context is that we have ranked consistently over time in the top two for access to pre K for three and four year olds. We are serving about eighty eight percent of our three year olds and seventy six percent of our four year olds. So as we're thinking about where we have been leaving the country, we've been doing a really great job in access. But again, that next slide will show where we're still struggling and what's prioritized in terms of equitable access. So going to the bars, in terms of what you're seeing, again, there's that even split between public and community based programs. And if you start on the left, I wish I had my fancy pointer for you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I'm sorry. No,

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: you're not. This is on me. Let's talk about school based first. So the left two bars, far left is three year olds. The next bar over is four year olds. Light blue is children who are not on IEPs and dark blue is children who are on IEPs. What we're seeing in the school setting is that we're serving more four year olds, right? We're serving more four year than younger children. We also are serving in across all of the school based programs, children with IEPs. So we're serving seven forty five children total, which is about 20%. And so I think what's really important in this slide is to see, or not even in this slide, in those bars right there, is that we're shipping twelve hundred three year olds in public schools right now. We also have two forty one of those three year olds on IEPs. So special education and the interplay of those is really important for us to consider as we're thinking about potential changes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Do you know if they get CIS?

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Do you know what's the question? I can't do the breakdown of CIS in this moment, like an unduplicated count for three and four year olds who are receiving pre K and on IEPs. But what we can look at is what happens before that zero to three, or sorry, before age three and what clues to that. But right now we haven't gone through an unduplicated count of, for example, the number of three and four year olds not yet eligible for kindergarten who are also still receiving some form of CIS service. The other thing I would note is that anywhere you're seeing fours is it's four and over. So it's Yeah, that's a lot of stuff. Four and then five is not yet helpful. And I think that you all know this, but just to be very clear, the CIS services that they would be receiving are the additional services. It wouldn't be the early intervention. And the IEP is through special education through those school districts.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I was just curious about when children are identified. And so, see bump up in four year olds. So it's just curious to me.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: He says, you want my top one more time.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Oh, I'm sorry. I haven't gone ahead or anything.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: No, no, no, it's fine. So let's talk a little bit about community settings and enrollment there. So now we're on the right two bars, on the left is still three year olds and on the right is four year olds. We're seeing about sixteen 100 three year olds in community settings, 188 are on IEPs. And then when we look at four year olds, we're seeing over two thousand four year olds in community settings and about two fifty on IEPs. And so one of the things that we've been talking a lot about is what does that mean for things like early identification? And so one of the thoughts is that developmentally, we would expect to see more four year olds potentially have been identified because we have such high quality early learning services. So they are receiving early intervention through childcare. Have really high screening rates as a state for our young kids. And so it is possible that we would see children identified in either their first year of pre K and, again, based on the development of language and other skills, see more four year olds. So we are having eyes on children to identify concerns early and those that have access to services. All right, let's talk about regional variation. You will not be able to read anything on this right now. I don't expect you to. We can on our own computers. So here's the big picture takeaway. Our statewide data shows you development. And it shows that there's an even split between public and community based programs. However, when you go to supervisory unions, significant variation across the state. A range of reasons for that, that's not what I'm going talk about today, but I want you to know that when you get the full number of the total enrollment, sometimes it's masking what it looks like in specific areas of the state. So what you're seeing here is the height of each bar is the total number of students. Blue the percent privately enrolled. Oh, sorry, blue is the percent of students enrolled in private programs. Red is the percent of students enrolled in public programs. And ultimately what you want to see here is there's three major trends. If you start on the far left, you're seeing supervisory unions with higher percentages of children who are enrolled in private programs. So far left, more blue, right? As you move to the right, what you're seeing is supervisory unions with higher percentages of children enrolled in public schools. So far right, higher percentages of kids enrolled in public schools. However, the majority of the state does have a mix of enrollment and there's so many different factors that are contributing to those trends. So big picture, we have districts that are serving children primarily in private settings. We have some districts serving children primarily in public schools. And then we have most serving a combination but at different levels. For those of you who are visual and didn't want to look at our phone, bar graph.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: One of the

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: things that we wanted to call your attention to again is there's large differences in how we are looking at it across the state. So if you were looking visually, the map is showing that same exact distribution but in shades of green. So the darker green indicates higher enrollment in school based programs and the lighter green is indicating higher enrollment in community based programs. And we absolutely can provide links to more interactive visuals. But again, I just want to call attention to the fact that the agencies and the partnership between our three entities has been so powerful in the last, specifically the last two years, to be able to start producing some of this work. Next slide is the original data that we used to present you. This was the one way we used to talk about capacity, right? Like who are the pre qualified programs and what does supply look like? So we didn't want to not have this for you if you were used to this type of a visual. It was also in the Joint Fiscal's report on pre K. Just wanting to call your attention to what this looks like as we think about supply, where the yellow dots are showing the location of private providers and the blue dots are showing public programs. The size of that dot is focusing on what we call license capacity. That license capacity number is based on so many factors. It could be the square footage, water in store. It's not necessarily the indication of the number of slots of that program. So again, that was the best indicator we had before to talk about capacity.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Thank you. And thank you, really, for this is the first time that we're seeing this level of detail. And it's just a big shout out to all entities who have worked on this. So thank you very much. It's so helpful. So students enrolled, do we know what percentage of students enrolled compared to the percent so what's the total number of three and four year olds in those areas? Oh, see, I haven't even gone

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: yet. Oh goodness.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: You'd think I was just like, know,

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: So the map on the right is showing exactly what you were asking about. So this is the percent of three and four year olds enrolled versus the estimated population at the county level. And again, darker blue, it's a higher penetration, higher percent of children who are accessing pre K. Looking at Chittenden with around eighty percent and Essex around eleven percent. So again, you're seeing this real regional variation. When we look at the MIRR data, it has that 5876%. But when we look at different parts of the state, we're seeing really different rates.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Well, which is, I think, where the I would say, I think where when we were talking about childcare expansion in the Northeast Kingdom. So if you look at the previous slides on Northeast Kingdom, it shows very high rate of public school access. But only 11% of their students are accessing it all. So you don't get the whole picture unless you're looking at both of Yeah. Okay.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: And then the other is it's really important as this committee knows to consider the population over time. So we've seen a decline over decades of young children in Vermont. It's a little bit wonky, but essentially, the chart on the left is showing a comparison between enrollment and population. So you'll see a little bit, the blue line is enrollment and then orange line is population. So enrollment was going up for a little bit, some COVID recovery, and then has declined. That cannot be completely explained by population decline. And when we're looking at overall enrollment decline, it looks more significant. Some of that can be explained by the population decline.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I need a little more help on this graph. Sure. What do the numbers actually represent?

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: So I think disregard the numbers. Essentially, it's the trends. You see a steady decline in population where if you're looking at the actual numbers, you would have trouble seeing where the differences are. So I think the important pieces to note are sort of where between '23 and 2425, the enrollment started to decline at a faster rate than population. So population has been that steady decline, and enrollment is currently following faster than that. And we have been asking questions of the agencies and others about this data and really diving into what is contributing to those factors. We don't have that answer right now, though. This may be a little too advanced. Oh, that's okay. Do you

[Unidentified Committee Member]: have it broken, like what those enrollment numbers look like or the decline from community based versus school based? Are they declining at the same rate

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: or is there different strategies? That was a great thing for us. We're thinking about this next year of data work with the agencies, part of what we wanna be working with the legislature on is what are the key questions that would help us understand and help us be able to create equitable access. So if we're seeing

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I know locally, some of our public school declined because due to budget constraints, they cut hours and they cut transportation. So I'm just wondering if some of

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: that information is in what the difference is between And the so that's why at this moment we don't want to attribute it to decline in families enrolling in pre K because there are so many factors, whether it's budgeting, choice, how families are thinking about after the pandemic, it could also be not just school budgets, but what is available in each of those areas.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: When we look at the percentage, the map, it kind of strikes me a little bit. And I'm just wondering, has there been a crosswalk of the there's information available about the median income by county? Yeah. Because I kind of look at this and I wonder if there's any kind of connection or correlation to that.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: As well as participation in public versus private.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: By income level. Yeah.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Yes. It also makes me think about, we're talking about pre K specifically this morning, but we're also, again, anecdotally seeing decline across all of our system of services in terms of enrollment. So it's just something for us to be thinking about, Are we seeing it in just one targeted area or is it really across child care, mental health services? And again, what are those other factors that are contributing to enrollment? So I'm thinking a lot about what's happening federally and where families feel safe and valued. And so just, I think there's a lot for us to dive into. Representative Bishop?

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: It was a question really against where I believe you hope to go with the data. I'm just was wondering, last year, I think we said it was the first year in a number of years that you had more childcare providers opening than closing. So I'm curious whether in another year we'll see an uptick in that enrollment index. And does this otherwise reflect that decline we were in? But as you said, we've got a lot more data to see before those types of proposals.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: We do, but I do think that's the importance of being able to capture and track it over time. And we really just haven't had the capacity as a state to do that well. And I think, again, it's important to call attention to the fact that we do have quite a bit of data. We might not have collected or captured or put in a beautiful, simplified place for everyone to access. Have been moving in that direction, but I am really thinking about that alongside the agencies of how do we think about capturing data over time across these systems of service, moving towards that unduplicated account that folks are really looking for, and we're closer than we've ever been. Largely due to the work of the committees, especially this one on Act 76, where you actually said, we're going to hold the system accountable and monitor data and try to understand the impact of some of these investments. I want to just be clear that we feel like this is high quality data and pretty confident in it. And some of it we have for a couple of years, but the further back we go, the less reliable and confident we feel about it. And so, some of these questions that you're asking, we might not have previous data on, or we might need to start collecting data, or being able do some of that crosswalking to make sure that we have really high quality data across all students. That's really important because one of the things that we wrote into the current iteration of that pre school development grant is to have consultants come in and help us build new systems for what data needs to be collected. Who's responsible for it? How do we store it? How do we communicate about it? How do we have capacity to analyze it? So again, thinking about, yes, we want to get a look at the data we already have, but there is data that we don't have on the number of hours that children are receiving in settings. And so what is the systematic way to continuously capture the data that we need?

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I guess this is a more global question of where we're trying to go and what do we think is achievable. You shared that for access, we consistently rank second, third, and three and four year olds. And previously, know we've looked at data with respect to kindergarten readiness being in the mid 80s, 85% being Yeah, so we rank nationally very well, here in Vermont. So at some point, there are limits. We're not going to reach 100% kindergarten readiness, we're not going to hit 100% of access.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: That's my goal.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: We'd also, yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: It's good to want things, my vice chair says.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: We're looking and being asked to consider what changes related to pre K we would make. What is our end game?

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: The reason that question is so important right now is that we're about to consider pre K changes at the same time as education transformation, which It is also means we need to set those benchmarks. So making sure that whatever happens in the broader ed transformation is also inclusive of the vision for pre K. And honestly, same thing that happened under App 76, where you identify entities responsible both for the implementation, but also the monitoring of that data to bring folks together to set those benchmarks. We didn't have them in the same way for child care either. ACT 76 was a great example of setting new targets for ourselves. What do we expect to see? How quickly? And what is reasonable in certain timeframes? And so I think that that's really important as you're thinking about.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: And I guess can those be targeted because looking at some of these data and maps, etcetera, it seems like a targeted approach to achieve our goals on access and how that's done versus sort of blanket goals. I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: think strategies would be different, strategies could be potentially different depending upon where you are. So

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: I do think that if we're moving towards the vision that we set for the system, maintaining threes but really focusing on equitable access, then we look at the data we now have that shows us exactly where in the state we're struggling and having conversations with the partners in those regions to ensure that we're having an understanding of what the drivers are of those gaps, but then also building very concrete strategic plans. I think that that's what chair was saying earlier is that we have a vision and we've had that vision. We haven't been able to execute. We haven't even been able to show this data until now. So now we have an understanding of, at highest level, what's happening across the state. And now we can do more targeted outreach to move the needle in equity.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Yeah, and trying to figure out how you do that within the context of proposed legislation. Right. And, you know, thinking about areas of responsibility and thinking about, you know, if this is a this is an education component that is jointly managed right now. And, you know, I I think about things like if we have you know, if if we come out of committee with you know, this money is coming out of education, so should it be then school district's to assure that there is access to pre K, then would it be an AOE responsibility, you know, in terms of that overall? And so then, right, so then they would be looking at public and private. Know, I think there's a lot of questions for us to consider in a compressed period of time that will get a lot of other attention as it moves through the building. Trust me.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Won't look like when at least

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: our committee will look like that.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Whether this next iteration of x 73 and education transformation is the right vehicle for where we may need to go to look at really more of a strategic, to me it seems like a more strategic need and looking at different areas of the state as opposed to whatever we do in education transformation. It seems like it's gonna be a broad stroke and not as surgical.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Well, and I think this is what we hear from school districts all over the state, that our approach to education transformation should be more local and should be more targeted without that broad sweep. And I think that that's the kind of like $200,000,000 or whatever, 300,000,000 question at this point in time. And I have no clue where we're gonna end up on that, the time we're supposed to leave here in the May.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Yeah, well, one other thing I'm hearing from this is that it strikes me that not only the strategy or the approach that we might take going forward, but line of responsibility and who's really taking charge of something that's sort of been sitting amongst a group of agencies, it sounds like at this point. So any direction we might, or thoughts we might have toward beginning to frame it up in that way of thinking makes sense.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Well, you probably won't be surprised, but yeah, I've asked Legis Council to put some words on paper.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Yeah, yeah, good. Expect that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Yeah. I think one of the key takeaways for me when I started delving deeper into this is that, much like we've heard from other places, but there's a lot of argument about the data and student performance and the investment for what test scores show and what performance showed. We have emerging data that our early education system is working. And we don't want to mess with it to upset that apple cart. At the same time

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Yeah, next slide. Okay. The

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: At the same time, as a resident of Vermont and a taxpayer, I say to myself, what changes between this extreme readiness for kindergarten and proficiency of four year olds and when you get to grade four, grade eight, and grade 12? What changes in that? I mean, obviously, kids change, but what changes in our education system that have these numbers fall off?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Outcomes are Yeah. So much Another, so for me, to your point, like, I just feel like in Vermont, we've had this really monumental investment in early childhood education, where we were like the first in the nation to take a step that wasn't. And I just really want us to be cognizant of the fact that we have very recently stabilized a system in crisis and just really be mindful that we don't destabilize what we We're only in year four of implementation of this monumental historic change of a really great big system that is producing really effective outcomes. So whatever we look towards, we wanna make sure that we don't break what we just kind of fixed.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: So I have a really beginner question, is the point that part of the reason that we've done so well in pre K is because of this investment and that we don't invest in the same way in education? And that wasn't part of the reason why the numbers fall off.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: What we're spending in pre K is a lot less than what we're spending on a per kid basis. It's less than $10 per kid.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: But the community really is sitting with the right table. We've made a significant investment in both child care and pre pay and our child outcomes, the things that we have set over time to be the benchmarks. Kids are doing really well coming out of early childhood education and making that transition into kindergarten. We're consistently leading the country in access. We are, again, focused on that mixed delivery model, which you saw from the data is so important in our rural state. And as we're moving through, what we heard from partners across the board is maintaining pre pay for three year olds is a priority. One of the things that hasn't come up in today's discussion but came up over the last at least seven years that I have been here is the importance of not just an entity that's responsible for pre pay but that there needs to be coordination at that local level, whatever that local level will be eventually, to have coordination for this system because we have a mixed delivery model in that space. And I think, again, that commitment to how do we know what's working, what's not, for whom, where in the state is another really important outcome of what has started to work better and well in this space. Just to be clear, I think what you're talking about was pre pay coordinators, UPK coordinators, which looks very different based on where you are.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I was gonna say, it would depend upon whether you have the majority of your pre k being provided in one system. If you have a more mixed delivery, then I can see that being necessary. If you have it all being done in one system, I don't necessarily see that as necessary. But I

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: think what we saw in that regional variation is that the majority do have kids in both. And we do have the wide end of that bell curve, where some just have public and some just have private, but we do see a range. So how do we do that well, both at the state level between agencies, but then at the local level across those programs. I'm very cognizant of the time. So next slide, please. Also wanted to comment a little bit with this committee. And I think that representative Garofano and others have talked about this. A change in one area of the system will impact others. All of these systems, whether it's childcare, pre K, head start, after school and out of school time care, they're built intentionally layered and interconnected. Their funding streams are weaved and programs are using the combination of both state and federal dollars to build those budgets. So just being cognizant that after thinking about a quote of education transformation, the significant investment in childcare, how do we maintain what's working really well in Great Bay as we're moving in a range of other ways. The other special call out I want to bring to this committee that's on the slide, but again really deserves a little bit of special attention, is special education. We talk very briefly about where threes and four girls are receiving special education or at least which school districts and supervisory communities are responsible for the foot. When we're thinking about equitable access, we have to think about inclusion of kids with disabilities and special healthcare needs and how to make sure that any change still gives them access to services that meet their needs in the least restrictive environments and with their peers. And then finally, again, not necessarily specifically aligned on this slide, but we need better communication both with state, local levels, and then across those two to make this work better. We're not doing it perfectly, but we are really strong in this system. All right. We actually have centralized data for our company at this moment in time, which is really great. So just a quick call out to Vermont's Early Childhood Data and Policy Center, which is where we, again, are partnering with all of the different agencies, but also community based partners who are capturing data to centralize all of this information. It's really designed to be that hub and an independent source of data for you all. We do have an early childhood data portal where you can be looking at different topic areas. So if you are a childcare person, you can look at childcare, you can look at mental health, all the things this committee really cares about. And all of that is searchable. Happy to come back and talk about strategic plan or other data topics.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Thank you. We still have a couple of questions. The one thing that I want to say is, I think historically, at least in the most recent past, we've had concerns as a legislative body, as a general assembly, with the accuracy of information that we're able to get in some places, particularly around education. And so I really appreciate the validation process that you use and the fact that you've been scrubbing data and that you acknowledge that things that go back past the last couple of years, you have less confidence in. And so I think it's really important because oftentimes the one looking at the data that you give us, and we have to evaluate what's being presented to us. And sometimes we're able to take it at face value, and other times we're not. So I just wanted to extend my appreciation to the fact that I know you do a lot of cleaning, a lot of asking those questions before you feel comfortable publishing something. So I just wanted to say that. And we have Doug and then Dan here also has a question.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I'm not sure if this is a question for you. I'm trying to figure out which witnesses we may see this week. That will be an appropriate question. If it's time for you, let me know. In looking at the funding that could go to public school settings for UPK around $6,900 and the funds that go out, say for example, center based $38.3900. There's a pretty big delta there. And I'm trying to understand why that larger gap might exist and what that serves.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Largely a question for joint fiscal deputy commissioner Obalpoena and secretary Summers. And what we've been told in the past is that the administrative responsibilities,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: and of course, you've got a whole infrastructure in schools that people presume don't exist in private, which I personally don't feel is accurate.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: And Shouldn't work at the private level.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: There is, there is. Yeah, running your own business and doing all yeah. So anyway, so one of the goals I have to tell you is I think that we want to equalize that. Those would be the recommendations coming out of our committee, I'm pretty sure. But so Dan.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, just quickly back on slide 12, you just mentioned about infrastructure in access water, wastewater. Over lunch, we were talking about that as a limiting factor with childcare. And I was just wondering if that's something that you've heard about for private centers being having limited access because of lack of infrastructure in our rural communities.

[Michelle Percy (Data and Policy Manager, Building Bright Futures)]: Michelle Percy from the Bright Futures. Prior to being the data and policy manager for the Bright Futures, I managed the Monroe Childhood Fund grant making programs through the federal preschool development grant. And one of the expenses that wasn't allowed was any kind of capital expenditures or any kind of capital purchases, construction was not allowed. And while we communicated that to happen, I certainly speak to at least development applications for things like expansions to add a bath mod or wastewater expansion. The person that we would speak to about that is probably someone over back from being notified because we do make loans to programs specifically for that kind of work and they might have a better sense of what the need is in communities, but that definitely fits an issue.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, and I know we've done some work around that here, around providing access to funding for municipalities to expand water and wastewater. And I just look at where the private centers are and if there's communications in communities where there's limited access, if they're talking to the town and saying, Boy, we could have this here if there was wastewater, just as another way to kind of build the need for that construction in the communities. Okay. That's it. I just, you brought it up, then I caught it, and it was a discussion we had at lunch. So I just was interested in that.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'll just add to that a little bit, just from my other hat on. As folks know, federal grant dollars that fund childcare also provide any of that money to be spent on capital expenses. But Vermont did just receive a fairly large grant that does allow that. It was a disaster recovery grant. So it would be really interesting. I'm sure we'll have conversations with Deputy Commissioner McLaughlin about this. But to kind of think about that funding in the way you're talking about more globally, not just about childcare, but also what does the community need, and how can we maybe use some of that funding to create more community hubs that maybe include childcare to grow the economy, use it as an economic development tool as well as just for childcare. So I think that'll be really interesting. And my colleague who worked on that grant, one thing is in the room. So I want to give a shout out to Helen Matt's house. But it's an exciting opportunity, especially in this moment that we're at in Vermont, where we know the need is there, and we have this now funding that we've never been able to use federal dollars for this type of work, and really working with the right partners across the state. And I know the department is being really intentional about working with ACCD and different, the disaster recovery office to make sure that we're kind of thinking more holistically about that money and where the development happens.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, because it's obvious that the private centers are much more cost effective. And I would hate to see that as a limiting factor when it possibly solves some of those problems.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Okay. Thank you both very much. And this has been really, really enlightening for us. Thank you. And we're excited to be the first ones to see it. So we will definitely tell our colleagues to go look at your presentation and listen to your testimony today. So now we're going to have Sharon Harrington. Hi, Sharon.

[Sharon Harrington (Executive Director, Vermont AEYC)]: Hello. Thank you for having me. Sure, of course. Thank you for being here. It's my first time here this session as well. That it's maybe more than ever before. So for the record, I'm sharing the merits of the executive director for the Mott Association for the Education of Young Children, also known as Vermont AEYC, to make it a little easier. I'm going to look at my notes to keep me on track. I'm so impressed by Building Bright Futures and the work that they're doing with data, and it is a gift. It is such a gift. And I have slides. I know we have a lot of data. I'm just going to share one perspective that's connected to the work that we do, really to the child educated workforce and some personal anecdotes from prospective employees.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: And the one thing I do want to say, Sharon, is, of course, I know you're involved in the licensure, the Secretary of State's bill. So we're obviously gonna be taking a lot of testimony on that bill a little bit later in the session. So that's I just wanted to mention.

[Sharon Harrington (Executive Director, Vermont AEYC)]: Yeah, it's true. That's perfect. And that's the invitation was as it relates to Act 73. So that is what I'm here to talk about. And I do think that there is some connection that we can circle around to. So that is my intention. I just, for those of you who don't know from my AEYC, our focus is always on what's best for children and families and for early childhood educators who serve them. And so that's the lens that I brought to the Pre K implementation committee, and that's the lens that I bring today. So once again, thank you for inviting me to testify. And I also wanna thank you for the thoughtful work. I've been listening and holding

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: back

[Sharon Harrington (Executive Director, Vermont AEYC)]: because I wanna engage in conversation because you're asking such good questions and really picking up on the things that are so important. I know it's like this is a really challenging time as you're facing education transformation and trying to think about how that universal pre K fits into that. I've heard some comments acknowledging that and I just want to say yes. So the good news is, as you know, Universal Pre K in Vermont is working really well. We're already a national leader. We're recognizing from the system that we have. And I appreciate the attention to protect that success and the opportunity to build on it with intention. So changes to this system should be made slow and methodically. I heard the word strategic earlier with awareness of other changes that are underway in our complex and intersecting early childhood and education public school private system. Most of all, avoiding those unintended consequences. So I'm just gonna focus on what Vermont AUIC believes is best for young children and what's happening to strengthen quality and retention of our early childhood educator workforce. A workforce which while on a promising trend, it's promising upward trend, there's still a shortage. So that does connect to the decision making that you're talking about. So I'll feel a little bit more about the MyAYC. We're a nonprofit organization, and we are the largest membership and advocacy organization for early childhood educators in the state. We're the state affiliate of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. You might have heard LACI, which is one of the country's leading early childhood education organizations. And as a national organization, MACI's key role is to promote high quality early learning for each and every child, birth through age eight, by connecting practice, policy, and research. So in Vermont, our organization works to advance equity, which I know is like what's on your mind, and excellence in early childhood education. Our organization's vision is that Vermont's children thrive and realize their true promise in supportive communities. We're grateful to partner with the Child Development Division to administer a broad range of programs and services for early childhood educators and regulated childcare programs. Vermont AYC for the last few years has been laser focused on recruiting and retaining our workforce that educates our youngest children. And our top priority this legislative session are protecting childcare funding and strengthening our early childhood education workforce. Because everything we do and every investment we make as a state to increase access to childcare depends on having a stable workforce of well supported early childhood educators who are qualified to teach and care for our youngest children. So I want to note that Vermont AUS's leadership incorporates the diversity of our mixed delivery system. Our board is led by a director of early childhood education for one of Vermont's supervisory unions. And between our board and senior staff, we have expertise in navigating UPK from coordinator and partner lenses, including both public school, private centers, public centers, parent child centers, family childcare, and headstart. So we have a lot of different perspectives in our organization. And finally, as Vermont's professional association for early childhood educators, we are committed to including the voices of those working in early childhood educators, whatever policies that impact them are on the table. And so I just want to make the offer that as you continue to accept testimony on this, we'd be happy to connect you with early childhood educators who are working on our exploring UPK system to share their perspective as you continue this conversation. So at the heart of everything we do are the Bronx Young Children and Families, And our organization is made up of predominantly early childhood educators who are focused on that. So as a state affiliate and a leading national association, We are informed by both national research and best practices from NACI, the National Institute for Early Education Research, which is on your schedule to hear next, between big hitters. And we are also connected to the Commission on Professional Excellence in Early Childhood Education and others. And so these align with the research and policy recommendations of our state partners and early childhood strategic plan that Morgan referenced from Building Bright Futures. So there are many key elements known what are best for children and families in UPK design, and I'm just gonna name a few. We've talked about a mixed delivery system, which means families can access UPK in different childcare settings, public schools, center based programs, and family homes. This delivery system recognizes that in order for families to participate, they need to be able to choose an accessible setting that works for their child. More settings at Oxford UPK means more opportunities for families and fewer childcare dozens in Vermont communities. And most importantly, it means fewer transitions throughout the day children. So if they're moving from program to program, that is not what's best for children. Extended day, extended year preschool programs have greater impact than half day programs. And this is also supported through flexibility of next delivery. Including both three and four year olds in UPK, at kindergarten entry, better outcomes as we've talked about are associated with two years of preschool compared to one. And we hear this anecdotally from superintendents and administrators as well. Vermont's current UPK system was developed with this expertise, and as a result, is working really well for Vermont's children and their families. The current model is child and family centered. It allows families to choose the setting that best works for their child and their family's needs, especially children from working families who may need full day and full year care, and those need a program closer to where an adult in the household works rather than where the family lives. A testament to the success approach are Vermont's UP Camp participation rates, which you just got that breaking data, which is great. And Vermont is ranked second in the country. So this is a strong indicator that our state's mixed delivery approach supports developmental best practices for young children starting pre K at age three, limiting transitions for the child and the continuity of care and adult relationships. Just gonna share a personal note, I've recently been able to witness the positive impacts of our state's UPK program from a family perspective. Vermont's UPK program was one of the motivating factor for my daughter and her young family to move back to Vermont. When my first grandchild was born and was just under a year old, her parents, an educator and a pediatric occupational therapist, were concerned about her educational opportunities in another state. One key factor in their decision to move back to Vermont was access to universal pre K at three years old. So now, two young children and are in a program that best meets their needs. As working parents, they need full day care, full year care for their children. And I'm, as grandmother, very excited to have them close to me. But it was a real consideration when they were considering about relocating back to Vermont. And although the cost of full time childcare is one of the major household expenses, the ten hours of publicly funded UVA through F-one 166 and childcare tuition assistance, which they're now eligible for through F-thirty six, them to afford the state. So have a personal attachment to myself. UPPA strengthens the quality and sustainability of early childhood education programs. I've heard just a few comments today about that. ACCOME 66 and the opportunity in a mixed delivery system for private programs to be funded by our K partners was an impetus for program quality improvements to many early childhood education programs throughout the state. Back from '66, we started this by requiring a license for educators in UPPA programs, partners as well as public students. So we saw individual early childhood educators increase their qualifications, ultimately increasing the quality in their programs so that they could partner with schools to offer UPK. It takes a lot for early childhood education programs to become qualified to be a UPK site, Individual educators need to meet those same educational qualifications, which takes time, money, and resources. The programs need to deliver initial services and program, which also takes time, money, and resources. Vermont has a lot to be proud of in the way we are giving early childhood educators access to scholarships and grant programs to increase their qualifications and programs to support the program itself to increase quality. We just want to make sure that we continue to move forward with equitable access to UPK for our youngest children by supporting more childcare programs and public schools to become qualified. We've also learned something else essential. Growing a historically under resourced workforce takes time and support. Increasing workforce qualifications, not an overnight quick fix as we're talking about education transformation. So at Vermont University, we administer a variety of programs in partnership with the child development division to meet educators where they are in their careers, including early childhood education youth apprenticeship program, the student loan repayment assistance program for early childhood educators, and the teach early childhood scholarship program. These supports have led to more qualified early childhood educators in private programs attaining AOE licensure so that they can become UPK partners. It's essentially an effective on ramp so that these programs have supported career mobility in both private and public sector. Sharon,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: what's the range of the on ramp? As we look to some of the goals of trying to equalize the access or equalize what the state is paying between public and private, recognizing that mostly at the private level, that there'll need to be an on ramp for requiring licensed teacher in the classroom, looking for ideas about recommendations for how long that on ramp

[Sharon Harrington (Executive Director, Vermont AEYC)]: should be. Yeah, it's a really good question. And the Community College of Vermont has provided a lot of testimony about their enrollment in their AA program. And I'm actually going to touch a little bit about the connection to higher education in Vermont, because that's a whole another piece of this puzzle. We have a lot of our workforce that are working and going to continue their education at the same time. And that is like, we are seeing high numbers of interest in advancing qualifications. I'm gonna give you a little stat related to ALAE licensure here in a second. They're working full time and they're going to school. So, we could pull some data for you about how long that typically takes. What we find is once folks complete their associates degree, their bachelor's degree pathway tends to be a little faster because they have more experience with higher education. We have a higher landscape analysis that can provide you with some data. I think it's linked in this document that I've shared. It is one of the things that we could talk about when you have probably another time when we're prepared is like the alignment that is happening with the three designations that we're gonna talk about in the future as how that fits with where we're going. But I do think that historically, I've heard you talk about the differences in rates that programs are receiving. You could easily pull some data related to early childhood educator compensation and private programs and travel schools and access to benefits. And I think that there's a study coming out in the process right now that's a wage and benefit study that will be able to provide some good data on that. I think that we are making good progress, but we still have ways Yeah, to Thanks, Anne. Of course, of course. So the Teach Early Childhood Scholarship Program is a pillar project that started at Vermont EYC. We just celebrated our tenth anniversary administering that program. And it helps early childhood educators access higher education debt free. And one of these models is the AOE educator licensure with an endorsement in early childhood education. And so this is a bachelor's degree plus the AOE's licensure requirements, which includes a portfolio passing the practice exam. And so the reason Vermont AYC administers this program is because this is the qualification required for UPK partnership. And since 2017, 105 early childhood educators have completed the teach AOE educator licensure scholarship model. 35 have completed the provisional AOE licensure model for a cumulative total of 140 participants. And this is the corner where Vermont AUIC overlaps with public schools. We administer scholarships that help educators earn that license if that is their goal. So I'm just gonna take you on a slight little tangent here. A number of educators who earn AOE licensure with EC endorsements do switch settings to work in public schools. And in large part, that is due to the pay and benefits, which are typically much higher. And so we're finding that parity is improving since Act 76, since we've had increased and stabilized childcare financial assistance reimbursement. And remind you why we 'll continue to advocate for systems that create equitable compensation across all settings. So that's the more work to come that we were just talking about. Many early childhood educators, as we know, are non traditional students. And that is the slower timeline as well as the financial support. And this is happening at a time when many of our state's higher education institutions are experiencing instability. And some degree pathways that were there five years ago are no longer available to term loan officers. So you'll find in the document that there is a linked higher landscape analysis if you want to dig into that. So we believe incentivizing early childhood educators to pursue higher ed and developing clear, predictable, flexible higher ed pathways for them benefits multiple groups, the workforce, the children served by them, as well as remote higher ed institutions. At MIUIC, we've developed great partnerships with higher ed institutions, building flexible pathways and making it easier for students to transfer credits. Our career advancement team is responsive to our workforce needs, and we invest in innovative models like a registered apprenticeship model, mentoring, communities of practice. And we work closely with CDD and Northern Lights at Community College of Vermont to award credential bonuses to early childhood educators who successfully complete the new qualifications. These workforce programs are vital. And many early childhood educators are paid better than they used to be, but it's still not a high paying job. And for the full context, and it's already been referenced today, before Act 76 passed, the system was in crisis, full blown crisis. And early childhood educators, even those with degrees could not make enough money working in childcare to support themselves. And they were leaving this workforce to go work in retail and and it wasn't their choice. It was out of necessity. So that's how it is in most states in our country. But since Act 76, I have the opportunity to attend national conferences and talk about the work here in Vermont. And everyone is so interested in the incredible work that happened with Act 76 and are interested in finding ways that they can support their communities as well. We're in a much more stable position, but right now we have affordability for families. We have expanding access based on the municipal water system and wastewater system, expanding access. But the workforce is still the piece that is necessary to make sure that XM is successfully successful. And I just share that because we have a serious workforce shortage. It feels like it's not a crisis situation as it was, but it's taken an immense amount of resources to move from that workforce crisis to breathing room. So there's a report that came out from the child development division in January that illustrates the workforce right now. And between 2022 and 2024, we've increased the number of individuals working in regulated care by 8.5%. That is very different than what's happening in other parts of the country. And between 2022 and 2024, 73 early childhood educators increased their qualifications to either bachelor's degree or a bachelor's degree with an AOE license. It's not broken out in the data, so I can't really tell you the difference. But it gives us a sense of that trend to higher qualifications. The most recent number we have for early childhood educators needed to meet the demand in Vermont is over 2,300. And this hasn't been updated since CDD increased their workforce report. And so when we think about this is like great news that the workforce has grown, but we also know that coverage are continuing to expand under F-seventy six, meaning there are more roles for early childhood educators to fill. And so I just am signaling that we have to continue to grow and strengthen our workforce to live into this vision for equitable access for universal pre K. So we wanna make sure that they're qualified, that we're retaining them, and that we are supporting them to increase their qualifications. And it will take a multi year spaced implementation period. Morgan and her team covered the information related to the data, so I don't need to get into that. I'll just say that as part of the PK implementation committee, we left that feeling a little dissatisfied that we couldn't come up with something. But what's happened is the things that were identified, that's what you're looking at now. Focus on a strategic plan moving in the right direction, the financing studies, the data collection, which is amazing, the strategic plan that we have now, the early childhood strategic plan, like all of those pieces were things that were needed to that were uncovered and be bantered with as part of that committee. So I think it's fantastic that we're really looking at it and trying to build on what's working well. We support expanding the number of hours funded for universal pre K. We feel strongly that it needs to be a mixed loading system. We feel strongly that it should be three and four year olds based on the research and the data. So as you consider the changes, I just hope you'll take some of those things into consideration. Tech book's working well in the context of Act 73 and education transformation. And we're happy to continue to support increasing the workforce and the qualifications, but we know that it's going to take time. So I just want to say thank you. I knew that my remarks would be pretty brief, but if there's, I'm happy to entertain a few questions or defer you to the people who actually can answer them accurately because I might not be able to. And I just want to say thank you. Thank you, Sharon. Appreciate Are

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: there any questions for Sharon? You so much for being Thank you. We'll be seeing a lot more of you in the second half.

[Sharon Harrington (Executive Director, Vermont AEYC)]: Yeah, I look forward to Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: And I see that we have Gigi online. Thank you so much for being here. Oh, you've cut your hair since your picture was on here.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: I did. Yes. Yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Welcome. Welcome to the House Human Services Committee. Thank you so much for being here. And we're hoping that I mean, we've seen a little bit of a glimpse of, what your report showed about Vermont and how we stack up. But it would really be helpful to hear your thoughts about how that data is measured. And so what are the validations and how you go about doing that process and anything that you have to share with us about the access to pre K for our youngest kids.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: Sure. And thank you. Thank you so much for having me here today too. I appreciate it. I've worked at NIER for over ten years. And NIER is the National Institute for Early Education Research housed at Rutgers University. So we are a state university and we are bipartisan. So it is really important to us to present neutral research that is important to help inform your process. And we're really our goal at is to conduct and create and disseminate rigorous research, evaluation and policy analysis. And that's part of my role at NIER is I work on a number of projects, including our state of preschool yearbook. And Vermont happens to be one of my states that I work closely with. So thank you to anyone from the state who helps me in helping understand your program because it's the only way that I really understand it. And I also work on a few other projects, and I'm just gonna mention them quickly because it'll apply in a few minutes. But I work on our mixed delivery pre K work. And it's important to think about just sort of to understand a little bit more, and I'll share some of that research about what we've done. I have spoken to some of you before, so that when I went through my slides from earlier things, I'm like, oh, I can just update with the current Vermont research, but I've also added a few new things. If it's okay, I'm happy to share a PowerPoint if that's easier. I was just going to talk and then I realized, like, I have a lot of good visuals, if that's easier, and I can email it to you ahead of time, or I'm happy to just talk whatever is easiest for you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: If you could email your PowerPoint, your slides to Laurie Morse, who contacted you, it's Laurie. Morse, right? VTLEDGE dot gov.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: Sure. And I'm happy to. And there's some at the end that you don't need to add, but I will just do it right now. And I apologize for this little stall.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: And she's made you a co host so that you're able to share them.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: Okay, perfect. So I will, Laurie, I'll send it to you in just a minute if that's okay, or I'll send it to you after I share.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: That's fine. That's fine. We can see you on the

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: Perfect. Okay. Okay. So I will start from this. Okay. So good. Okay. Perfect. So that's me, and here's our little thing. So I just am gonna show this is I'm just going to talk about high quality pre K, and it's important I wasn't I was going to take the slide out, and then I realized, I just want to really make a comment that we I know when I was reading through Act 73, there was a point where it seemed as though pre K and childcare was almost used interchangeably. And I wanna just be really clear that they are different programs, and both are very important in part of their early childhood ecosystem. But childcare was really designed to help support and provide a caring and warm environment for children to thrive and to while parents worked or were in school. And so often the licensing requirements and the teacher qualifications that fall under those programs are different than what's required for an early learning program, where the goal is really to support that child and being ready for kindergarten. And there are different focuses. The workforce requirements are different often. And those distinctions are important because the programs can be seen as different. And these are some of the benefits which you all know, I'm sure. Oops. So the state of preschool yearbooks, our annual yearbook that comes out, this will be our we've been doing it for twenty three years, our new yearbook will be coming out in April. So this is last year's yearbook. And it takes us about a year to be able to go through everything, collect all of the information. It's quite a process. There are anywhere from four to five of us working on the yearbook. And we're all we love working with our states, and we love learning about our states. But each state is completely different. There are 64 programs in 44 states and DC plus Guam. And we collect information on access, how many children are enrolled in the programs and the 10 quality, benchmarks, as well as spending information. So there the 10 benchmarks have changed over time. Currently, these are our 10 benchmarks. They're all based on research. So we look at what the minimum requirements are for what a high quality pre k program means is. And what we mean by that is what conditions need to exist to help prepare children to be ready for kindergarten. So we want to look at what are those specific things that really help set up a child in a program for success. And they evolve around these 10, early learning standards, which Vermont has curriculum supports, teacher degree, teacher specialization, and assistant teacher degree, the staff professional development. So those four are all related to the workforce. And then we get into structural issues like maximum class size, staff to child ratio, screening and referral, and then continuous quality improvement systems. And I'm going through this quickly because I'm gonna really get into the specifics about Vermont. But if at any time you have questions, please stop and interrupt me, and I'm happy to answer any of those.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Thank you.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: Definitely. And this actually, I'll get back to Vermont in one moment. But first, I just wanna say there's a few other things that the yearbook also looks at. One is that research has found that extended day, extended year preschool programs have a greater impact than those that are half day programs. And you know how I'm setting this up because we're gonna talk about some of the other Vermont characteristics that we collect in the yearbook. Two years is better than one year, more time in a high quality program, better prepares children for kindergarten. Also, lot of research has come out that universal preschool programs are likely to produce benefits that far exceed the additional cost. And finally, a mixed delivery system can increase family choice, which can increase the number of children who are enrolled and the children who stay enrolled in pre K programs. This is an older slide because we haven't, we collect this and report this periodically, but in 2021 we looked at kind of how many the states that provide full day programs as opposed to school day programs. So the darker the color, the more of a longer day pre K program is offered. So I know this is a couple years old and some things have changed, but not as much as you would hope. But one of the big changes, and I just actually was on the call with the Michigan State leaders, and in they've increased dramatically in 2004, their program was a part day program, like a twelve hour a week program, similar to what Vermont does. Now they're almost 90 I think it's 95% are a full day program. They've shifted their day, and they've shifted their spending to really switch to a more full day program. So it is possible, the states that are doing it are more of those Southern states like the Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia are kind of shifting to that. Let's move, let's make this a longer day program. There are a number of reasons, more families enroll, but also it helps prepare children better again for kindergarten.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Gigi, can I interrupt you? Sure. I'm sorry. Sorry.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: Yeah. No. Please interrupt me all the time.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: So for all those, states, is this for three and four year olds?

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: It no. This is this is four year olds. So I'm gonna actually, it's Four year olds. It's mostly four year olds. And I will show you the three year olds and four year olds in a minute. A lot of states only have four year olds. Okay. So for the states that have both, it has both, but I would consider this more just four year olds.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Thank you.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: It's a little nuance y, sorry. And here's the Michigan example I just said. This is really important to think about that they've shifted to moving really into like this full day kind of extended day program. But in order to do this, because I know this is the group that's gonna say, well, did you do this? Is through increased appropriations. And they have a really good budget report. They also do a, school funding formula. They fund their pre K program through school districts or through intermediate school districts who then distribute the funds. So they have kind of like a public entity similar to Vermont, a little bit different, but it's more similar than other programs. And it's just kind of a helpful, I think, example to think about kind of how they do their per child spending and sort of what that looks like. But there is the possibility of shifting from a part day program to a full day program and making that possible. And I'm happy to share more about that if you'd like. So here are the number of four year olds enrolled. So the greener the color, the better, the darker red color, the worse. The percentage of four year olds served in a state funded pre K program. And Vermont and Colorado are the dark green colors. So the Vermont along with Colorado are the two states that serve over 70% of the four year old children in a state funded program. And DC is like up there too. Sorry. It's not a state, but a district. And then to talk about the three year olds. Again, the greener, the better. So Vermont is the sole state that really serves three year olds. And as you can see, most states do not serve three year olds. They're all the dark red the, like, maroon color. And then the red ones serve less than 10% of the three year old population. Some states are moving up, however, in their three year olds, such as New Mexico, as you probably have heard in the news. New York City is another place that will be increasing numbers with New York City and that commitment to serve three year olds. Okay. Let's look at now the yearbook profile. I know this is very small, but I encourage you to look at our state of preschool yearbook. We've become more interactive on our website. And so we do create these two pages. And the goal is to really kind of show what happens in Vermont over time. So we start in the upper left corner with these two bar graphs, that show line graphs that show kind of the enrollment over time, as well as spending over time. And both are really helpful to see kind of the history of a program, but also to see at the comparison to other states. And there's like possibilities if you'd like to look at other things. The history in the background is usually the same, really, the agency of education really helps us draft and really make sure we highlight anything important that's happening within the state. And then on the right side, we have pie graphs within a population of three and four year olds served as well as the standards and other kind of benchmarks. And we'll look at those a little closer right here. When I was kind of looking and putting this together, I noticed I'm like, how did Vermont do in the past few years? So looking at the comparison between the, 2024 and 2022. So our most current data, Vermont ranks number two for access for four year olds, number two for access for three year olds, and then resource and ranking does very well as well. And it improved, which is really something everyone, especially in this room, should be really proud of that there has been increases. So please don't stop them. So please, you know, we're really proud of the work that Vermont's done. There are some things, and I kind of keep that ten hours a week sign on the bottom, because that is the one area where Vermont could definitely improve or think about what ways to enhance and to increase kind of the quality of the program is by the quantity of the program. In terms of benchmarks, the three benchmarks that are no surprise to this group are the BA degree, which I had just heard when I kind of logged in, requiring not a BA degree for non public teachers. And this is the one area where, a recent report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Math or Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council came out talks about the recommended requirement for a pre K teacher is a bachelor's degree. And bachelor's for both in a public school as well as a non public school. And this is when it gets tricky that whole mixed delivery system, because in most states, they're different, they're not the same and what's required. They're different systems that license or certify these people. But if we expect to have that same experience for every single child who attends a pre K program, then we need to have similar types of qualifications for that workforce, which also means you can, compensate at a similar level. When I joined us, I was just hearing about the workforce compensation issues, benefits, and other things. It's just critical and part of that picture needs to be thought about. Similarly, assistant teacher requirements requiring a CDA. We've just heard some more stories of high school programs kind of encouraging children or encouraging high school people to enroll in in a CDA program. So when they graduate, they leave with a CDA, maybe help build up that workforce pipeline. And so there are some strategies places are doing, but just kind of pushes people into that role of being able to better meet the needs of the children in the pre K classroom. The other thing is the, requiring coaching and really supporting teachers once they're hired. Again, the non public schools are often the ones that are kind of missing this benchmark, not requiring coaching, not offering the same supports that we know, especially if you don't have that bachelor's degree, especially if you don't have as much experience to really support those teachers in meeting and implementing a high quality curriculum and program. Mixed delivery system and pre k, I'm going to move past this because I don't wanna run out of time, but they're two different things. One is the system is really kind of everything about the system. Mixed delivery pre K is specifically about pre K that it's offered in multiple settings. There are different things. And I think understanding that sometimes people use those words interchangeably and they're like, well, we have childcare. But if the childcare is not operating pre K, then it's a mixed delivery system. It's not just a mixed delivery pre K model. Pre K mixed delivery pre K meaning that pre K happens in multiple settings, not just public schools happens in almost all all but one state. The purple states mean that they have multiple programs and one program only operates in the public school and the other one operates in the non public in in a mixed delivery settings. So most operate in both. This is the best sort

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: of Gigi?

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: Oh, sorry. Yep. Sure.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Can you go back to that slide just for a second? So that seems, like you said, most, offer in both. Is it funded by the public education dollars in those states that offer mixed delivery systems?

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: It's public. It's state public dollars. So sometimes it's through education dollars, some it might be through lottery dollars. So they might have different revenue sources, but they're state revenue sources.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Okay.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: So but in most states that do, like Michigan or New Jersey, and I can talk about both of those, those are states that are funded through education dollars, but that they go through, but the money goes through, like, education like, kind of goes through the education pipeline and then the school and then the public school kind of system distributes funds to other providers that are non public school.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: That's the way it happens in Vermont. That's the way it happens in Vermont as well. So that's what I you know, a lot of discussion in Vermont about well, I don't I don't know if it's a lot, but some discussion in Vermont about whether pre K should be actually funded through the education system or not. So I was just curious, all those other blue states, what they did.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: I'd have to say it changes. So like Washington State, for example, used to be its own separate department of early learning. So not an education department, not a health and human service type department, not health department of health department, but its own early childhood department, then it went back to being health and human services. Most are through the Department of Education that sort of administer the programs.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Some

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: do it through offices of learning, which is a little bit different and probably not the Vermont pathway, I think. But most states are similar to Vermont.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Okay.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: Thank similar than not. Mhmm. Yes. So most children I'm gonna just this is oops. Sorry. It's a little bit different that I think the similar thing, and this is just an older study that in Vermont and that more that children were, like, 40 half were enrolled in school based program, that there is more capacity possibly in non school based programs. A few pre K programs started where they wanted to just be public schools, and they run out of space, or they run out of appropriate space, or it's too costly to retrofit. Or there are lots of reasons that states kind of then move into this more mixed delivery model. Often other non public schools have better appropriate settings, and it's easier to do it that way. Plus, there's a variety of reasons and a lot more research has come out on what families choose and family preference. So there are a number of reasons to really think about the mixed delivery system. I'm not going to get into all of that right now, but here's some more of the choices.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: And you might I just gonna say you might also want to look at, Building Bright Futures' most recent data that we were the first to see today, to update your slide on that previous slide.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: I totally asked. I'm like kind of like, I really want to see that also. Like kind of totally scanned it. As soon as I joined, I saw them. Oh my gosh. So, yeah, so ignore that. Look at theirs. But let's look at this part. Doctor.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I just want people here. I just want committee members to get confused.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: I know that totally. So I apologize for that. I totally agree. This is a little bit old too from you know, that's the problem with research that by the time we look at it, make sure it's good, then get it put it together in a published thing. You know, it ends up being, like, a few years later, which is horrible because then it takes a while. So we try to get things out quickly, but we're always a little behind. But this is just looking at, like, where do children in mixed delivery pre K models actually where are they? So there were five states we really analyzed closely. I would say Michigan, New Jersey, and New York are more similar to Vermont in governance structure. Alabama and West Virginia are a little bit different. Alabama, everything comes through the state. The state manages all the contracts to public schools or to non public schools. So they're a little bit different. They're kind of like the micromanagers of the world. So they kind of keep track of everything at the state level. West Virginia has these collaborative county collaborative. So it's local, but there are very strict restrictions on how they collaborate and how they do that, which is again a very different governance structure and a little more complicated. Michigan, New Jersey, and New York really use their education departments to kind of manage and control things. So I would say for the purpose, your purpose, they're probably there are more there are states that are better to look at, but all of these states can do mixed delivery and they all do it a little bit differently. So as I just mentioned, they kind of flow through either an intermediary or the school district, But in the case of Michigan, they really are like, it's called the intermediary school districts, which are kind of a quasi school district structure.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: But

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: there are four major points that we often see in terms of mixed delivery, the governance structure, funding, the requirements to support program quality across all settings, and then access and equity. There's no one way to do this. And that's what's important. It's kind of what works best for that state, taking into account kind of all the different players, really what is existing currently, what's already been built up currently, and what kind of needs to be changed. So there are a number of factors. These are just a few things I just want to highlight. I just updated Michigan's a little bit ago today. So this is what they fund per child for a full day program. And for a part day program, it's 5,093. It's similar to your structure. So just to kind of because I heard some numbers coming about. New Jersey, these are old numbers, but they are not that much different. But they fund the thing that's important about New Jersey is that they fund children at a school district lower than at the private provider setting. I heard a little bit of that conversation when I came on, part of that that economies of scale that public schools have a lot more kids. They have like the principals paid for, the maintenance persons paid for with the school, other school dollars. They don't need to use the pre k funding for that. But we're in a private setting, there may be fewer children and sort of the cost kind of comes on to the pre K, not all of it, but some of it. So there is some share. So that's usually why it's a little bit considered usually a little bit higher. Head Start in the case of New Jersey is that they really want to it's a blended program. So it's expected it's not going to replace Head Start fundings, but supplement Head Start funding. Any questions about these?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: No. It's just it's it's interesting to see that Vermont's the exact opposite of what New Jersey is. So

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: It is. That's sort of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Yeah.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: Why I brought that up a little bit. Because I did kind of hear a little bit about that, and I was a little concerned because usually, it is considered it costs more to operate in the private provider setting because there's not that whole infrastructure of support, like even a data system, even like is that what you were talking about? Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Yeah. Sorry. We were we were just having that reaction that I think that committee members here agree with you. And, know, for whatever reason, when when our UPK funding system was devised, it it wasn't set up that way. But we're gonna try to correct that.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: And the other thing is when it's prorated, I know that comes up sometimes. I was asking Michigan today, I'm like, what is your prorate rate? Is it point like, is your FTE rate or ADM or whatever it is, your acronym for what you use to describe it? Yeah.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: It's not 47.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: Yeah. Michigan's is a little bit higher. I think it's 0.6. And I can find out more information about Michigan if you're interested, but they usually require that the ISD, which kind of administers the fund and does the overhead can only keep up to 10%. And often it's lower than that. So there's usually a cap in what those that indirect or kind of that administrative cost is. Sometimes it's 15% for some places, but there's usually a cap so that most of that money goes to the program that's delivering services for the pre K children. If you're expecting those pre K teachers to have a bachelor's degree and salaries to be comparable, which some states do require that, and they require pay equity, then you definitely need to have a similar number or higher to get there. And it's great that there's so many scholarship opportunities, but that can definitely add in. The teacher requirements, you know, the BA, the compensation parity, and professional development opportunities, again, are the three, like, big ones. Those are the three big ones in Vermont. And that's in every mixed delivery. This is sort of the struggle or kind of the challenges how to figure it out. But if you think about where are children going, how to what is the goal of this program? And if it's to prepare children for kindergarten, these are the places we need to focus because teachers are what makes the difference. And this is the place where you really need to invest, the teachers and the time to be able to interact with the students to get there. I'm not gonna get into all the governance access. I think this is the other thing I wanted to say is that some states require mixed delivery legislatively. Some just sort of talk about it like New Jersey, like, we really want you to do this. It's really important. And they don't put the number. A lot are served in non public schools, but they're finding more and more challenges where districts don't want to partner out because it is, it's a lot of work. But they do have templates. They do have supports for school districts. I know I've worked with some family childcare providers in New Vermont, and just the challenges of contracting is a lot. And maybe that's a role is to figure out how the state or what supports the state can offer with funding to be able to support school districts, not in telling them what to do exactly, but to offer more resources. Some states like Michigan require, a certain percentage of children be served in non public settings similar to New York. West Virginia is a little different. I'm going to stop there just because I feel like I've told you a lot.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: It's very, very helpful to sort of get the perspective about both how Vermont stacks up, but also about what some other states are doing that we can also learn from. So questions, committee members?

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Have one.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Talks, yes, go ahead, Representative Noyes.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So I did see some data in there on workforce. I was wondering what the workforce looks like. I don't know if you track that information. I'm mostly interested in age. I mean, in Vermont, we have we have the best experienced workforce, older Vermonters. And I was just wondering, do you have data on that and what other states? I know that young people going into teaching you know, start in childcare and then move up. But I was just wondering about the age range of people working in this profession.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: I don't have that specifically for Vermont, but there is similar to near there's that we have a partner out in California at Berkeley called the Center for Child Care and Workforce Employment or something. Forgot their acronym CSCCE. And they collect specific data on kind of using national data sets on workforce gauges. And I can get that together and forward it to you. And I'll send it to Laurie who can share it with you. Definitely. And I think the thing about childcare and teachers and education in generally, it starts maybe a little bit higher than other professions, like for people who have their bachelor's and are certified, but it kind of levels off. It doesn't go crazy high. It sort of just starts and then just sort of stays. So there's not this kind of like some professions where you want to kick out the people who've been there forever because they make too much. It's not that same kind of field. So it's a little bit different, but the problem is that especially with more and more states, implementing minimum wage and things and things going up, but there's not that same you know, like, you can make more at Amazon. You can make more at, you know, Starbucks, and you don't need to have these same qualifications, which is troubling.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Right. Okay. Any other questions? Gigi, thank you so much for being here today. We really appreciate it, and it's been very helpful. And please do forward the slide deck to Lori so that we can look at it afterwards and share it with our colleagues.

[Gigi (National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University)]: Will do, of course.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: All right, thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay, folks. So we have had a really informative afternoon on pre k, and where we're at in Vermont, where Vermont stacks up with other states, what other states are doing that we can learn from. So it's a lot to digest. And for the folks in the room, just so you have some sense of what our schedule is, we will be hearing from AOE on Friday afternoon. And then we are scheduling some additional witnesses for next week. And this is kind of have to move through our committee relatively quickly because, there's a bunch of other committees that have to, add to and comment on whatever it is that we put out. So, if you're interested, stay in touch with our committee, and watch our committee or be present in committee, particularly next Tuesday and Wednesday. So we'll be looking at various drafts and stuff like that by that time. So and it's got a long road to go after it leaves our committee, and we'll have many opportunities for change. And I want to One of the things that I think sometimes has gotten lost in this whole ACT-seventy three and education transformation conversation is what should be our goals. And so really laying out what the goals of our work on pre K. We don't have as much influence, except for our vote on the floor, on what happens in the bigger picture. But we do have an opportunity to influence pre K and sort of set the stage. And so I want us to really think about what are the goals that we're trying to achieve. I've been clear about what some of mine are. A key one being equitable access across the state. And that's, for me, the first one that I'd like to try to achieve. But everybody come to the table with whatever you think that we should be doing as a committee. So that's where we're gonna start once we get through the testimony is thinking about that and then making sure any actions that we take are measured against that. And so thank you for your time and attention without a break this afternoon. But now you will have a little bit of a

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: break before we're required to go to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: the Okay. Floor at three And then I will tell committee members, please watch your text to know whether or not we are going to meet after the floor. Okay? We do have a new version of six fifty seven that just came in from Katie that I will be posting. Well, I won't be posting. It's the global eye.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Who's Lori?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: So Lori will be posting that momentarily. And so look for that. And we're continuing to get feedback from people who are watching this morning, and that's good. That's what the process is all about. And so take a close look at that. Katie says she's available to come back after, but it looks like the floor is going to have some length to it. So I think that if we do come back, what we would be focusing on is not on June. I think we'll take a vote on that tomorrow. We would be coming back to look at the latest draft of our homelessness bill, which is on the website today. But that's a We'll have to see what happens on the floor and how all that sugar's out. Okay? So please just watch your text. Yeah, we do. We have third reading for our APS bill. And luckily, we don't have an immunization bill. That's off to the ground.