Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Hey, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the House Human Services Committee meeting. This morning, we are continuing our discussion on net universal pre K, trying to actually make it more universal. That would be one of our key goals, is to improve access to pre K, and particularly in those parts of the state that don't have as good access as other parts of the state. So with us this morning is Beth St. James. And Katie will be joining us in a little bit. And thank you for being here, Beth.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Morning or welcome. Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel. So before we begin looking at the language that Katie and I prepared for you today, I do just want to note that the Are you all aware of what the Senate What passed out of Senate education related to pre K?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm aware of something about New Hampshire and cross border stuff. I don't have the language of the bill, but that is helpful to work into the conversation. Yes. And

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: if at any point you wanna look at that language, I believe it's going to finance. So it's got a couple stops before it hits the floor, Senate Education Path to that language that was a compromise between the agency of human services, AOE, and the school district in question, I believe it was any K choice related to accessing pre K through act 166 funding in section eight twenty nine in New Hampshire public schools. Very specific to that school district. So actually, if you wouldn't mind before we start going through this, if

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you want to pull that up, that would be great. Because that's based on our testimony, that is one of the key areas of the state where access is very limited. Absolutely. Let me

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: find see if I can get the committee report for you. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I've had my sound on last night. So this

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is S two fourteen, which passed out of House Education, Senate Education last Wednesday. And I believe is stopping in finance this week and then most likely appropriations before it hits the floor. But this is all it is. So it's an amendment to section 16 BSA eight twenty nine, which as we know is the pre K statute. And it doesn't amend anything in current law. It just adds a subsection to the very end of the entire section, which states notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the any K choice school district may provide pre K education to eligible pre K students by paying tuition pursuant section to one or more prekindergarten programs operated by a public school in New Hampshire that is located in a school district within 25 miles of the Vermont order. The Essex North Supervisory Union shall be responsible for administering enrollment procedures and managing pre K tuition payments pursuant to the section and State Board of Education rules. The superintendent may apply for and receive a waiver from the Agency of Education and Agency of Human Services of any rule provision that is impractical for either the school district or the New Hampshire program by demonstrating that a substantially equivalent provision is offered? This is language that was provided to the committee by AOE and DCF.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The one thing that stands out to me is that it just says public only. Doesn't say public and private. Do we know if there is private pre K licensed by the state of New Hampshire?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I don't know. I was not in the room for all testimony on this, so I don't know that I can speak to whether there is how New Hampshire licenses pre K. I was in the room for discussion about this being

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: an intentional choice on the part of the agencies. I am gathering that was an intentional choice. I just am wondering. That sort of sets up a complicating factor from my perspective. Students in the rest of Vermont had choice for private or public, and students in this school district only have access to public, then even though it may increase access in that district. So not sure what to do with that. But it's helpful information to have. And hopefully, when we have AOE here and we can ask DCF about the intent behind that and if there may be a perfectly, easily understandable explanation. Like, maybe New Hampshire doesn't license private pre K. I don't know. I don't know. I'm sure that there is an explanation. I'm just trying to we're trying to increase equity. And so on one hand, it does. On the other hand, it sets up something that's different than other three and four year olds in Vermont. However, if there's no practical access to public or private in Vermont in that school district, then maybe does help to achieve the goal. So we'll ask AOE when they're here. Lori, maybe if we can have Janet available later today, that would be good too.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will say Janet was the main witness on this from the administration.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So she didn't mention this at all yesterday and we didn't bring it up. So thank you for bringing it up. Are there any questions? Yeah, go ahead. Yes, so choice,

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: a high school that has Or a school district that has choice, what if that goes away?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh boy, how long do we have?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Okay, probably

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So any K Choice is the actual name of the school district.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Oh, okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Chosen They to name themselves that because they do not operate any schools.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Hence the capital C. Correct.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But they are part of the Essex North supervisory union. Correct? So whatever we put in place for the future needs to, I would say, take into consideration this concept that they've agreed to allow tuition payments. That sets up a whole other So they're gonna say, well, if you do it for pre K, why aren't we doing it for K through 12? And maybe we are. I mean, we have joint school districts. Yeah, we're not going there because that's just our responsibility. No, I'm saying that to myself. Something is likely That is a

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: school district name.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If they are incorporated into some other school district, that would need to change. And I would suspect that before any education bill gets out, that that won't stand alone as a separate bill would be my guess. Okay. Yeah. One

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: question. This strikes me as being more specific than I would think Vermont statute normally is. Was there were there others who are looking for the committee to include their district in a similar arrangement along other parts of Vermont's border?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will say that this language as introduced was much more general as you normally would see. And this was language brought forward by the administration working with the school districts affected. And from the testimony that I was in committee to hear, there were several folks on all sides of the aisle, both the school district of choice, the administration, and the committee members who were constantly asking, are there other school districts we're not taking into account? And I think the answer was that I was hearing was always, I don't know, but no one has come forward. And maybe someone has come forward, and I am not privy to that, but the testimony that I was in the room for was

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not that we know of, essentially. Not that

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we know of. Yes.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: That surprised me, and I'm not extending an invitation. Just to, you know, see.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I I mean, if you go back and think to the data that BBF shared, This isn't surprising, given that there's only 11% of the kids in that part of the state who have access to pre K. And I'm trying to remember the rest of the map. Is not so much in the Upper Western quadrant, but I suspect that there are Well, in the central part of the state, we have school districts that cross borders. So theoretically, there's already been something worked out around that. I don't know. But we're not going to add to that. But that's something for us to be aware of. And I think that we'll just let that continue to go along its merry way and not think about incorporating it into this bill. Because I think that seems that it's what my gut is telling me to do. So could you now let's go to the draft language that you and Katie worked on and walk us through that. And I just forewarned committee members that this is just a very draft and it does not reflect our conversation from yesterday yet. I just want to be clear about that. Thank you, Beth.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I appreciate that very much. I did not have the opportunity to hear any of your conversation yesterday. And I also view this very much as a draft that I look forward to getting feedback on and incorporating it so that it does reflect whatever goals you have. So this is a committee bill. It's draft 2.1 because Katie and I were working on it together. There is no 1.1 for you to be worried about. Okay. So we are really We're gonna get into some education finance. It comes a little bit later, but the bulk of the amendments in this bill appear in section one, which is to section eight twenty nine in Title 16, which is the pre kindergarten education statute. First change you can see here is that the definition for pre kindergarten child has been amended to mean a child as of the date established by the District of Residence for kindergarten eligibility is four years of age or five but not yet eligible to enroll in pre K. So two things going on here. One, we've removed three year olds. And two, based on some of the conversations that we did hear in this committee about, for lack of a better way to define it, redshirting, right? When you have a kindergartner or a five year old who is eligible to enroll, but they have not been enrolled in pre K, I think there's been a lot of debate about whether that child would qualify for pre kindergarten education. That is a policy choice for you all. I should say funding for pre K. This language would limit it to five year olds who are not eligible to enroll pre K. So they turn five after the cutoff date for their school district, which varies across the state. Again, choice for you all.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. And I think just to talk about what we did yesterday in terms of it seemed like I heard consensus around the room that if one of our goals was to expand pre K, I also heard, don't do that at the expense of taking three year olds out. And I just am wanting to make sure that if I'm reading the room correctly, then that I think we would be leaving three year olds Not me though. No, I'm just saying consensus around it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, okay. Yeah. I want kids to be kids and they can hardly stay awake. They find them on a

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: school bus. They get back to

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the garage and they're sleeping in the sea and it's bad.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Keeping three year olds? Correct. What about that eligible to enroll?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: A second, go ahead. No, I meant just a second.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Ahead, Anne. Right. Yeah, and I apologize if I missed that conversation on the eligible to enroll versus enrolled There are kids who are just not ready for kindergarten, even if they're technically eligible. It seems like we're kind of closing out that decision to wait. And I'm not sure. My first reaction is I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, not that I wouldn't, you know, want discussion and all that, but that's my reaction. Thanks. Go ahead. Actually, you know what I think I'm going to do is,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: because it looks long, but it's really just because there are elements in lots of different places, why don't we let Beth

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: and

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Katie go through it and then we'll come back. Morning, Katie. Morning, how are you? Great. So I'll put it back in your hands.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I circled that with my pink pen. Okay. So no changes to the definition of pre kindergarten education, no changes to the definition of pre qualified private providers. So we're out of definition subsection. We're on page two now, line four, subsection B, access to publicly funded prekindergarten education. So again, big policy choice for you here on line five. Current law is that students are eligible, students are eligible for not fewer than ten hours of publicly funded pre K. This draft contemplates not fewer than twenty hours of publicly funded pre K.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We are going hear from JFO to give us some estimates about this. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No changes regarding the choice between enrolling in a pre qualified private provider, a public pre K program outside of your district, or the pre K program operated by your district, that all remains the same. No changes here. We're on page three now. We're still in subsection B, line 12. Here's some language that requires school districts to be responsible for providing or arranging for the provision of pre K education to ensure all resident students have access to a pre qualified provider. I have added this language at the direction of adding this language, and I think it needs a lot of work. Responsible for the provision of or arranging for mean? If this is a concept that you want to explore, I think I would recommend that we get more specific in this language. Does that make sense?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We use this phrase a lot in our business. But you're the education expert. So if it needs further clarification, what the intent is that they either provide it in a school building or they contract with private pre qualified providers. Or I guess in the case of across the border, I'm not sure how to deal with that, but private pre qualified providers, or I guess they could contract with other public school districts.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's a clarifying question.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's why we didn't get specific because we don't know what the governance and what the districts are gonna look I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: know. Yeah. What if the district contracts with some private providers,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: but a

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: household identifies a private provider in their community that is not one of those contracted entities? Could the family still receive their pre K through the provider they themselves found or would they have to go through the contract with the school district? Did that make sense?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I understand. So if the school district says, okay, here's a list of the ones that we have contracts with And a family says, yeah, but this one isn't qualified. They've been qualified by the state. Why can't I get them? I would want them to be able to if they've been qualified by the state.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the language in the subdivision three that's current law, I been what I think this is already happening. So subdivision three says, if requested by the parent or guardian of a pre K child, the school district of residence shall pay tuition for a pre qualified program operated by a private provider or a public school in another district, even if the district of residence operates pre K education program. To me, that is exactly what you just described. Right. Yep. But

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the part that we don't have in law is that it's a school district that's responsible for making sure that there is a program, whether it's public or private. So right now, all we really say in law is that we'll pay for it if you find something. I see. It's putting the locus of responsibility at the school district level to assure that there is access. Just saying, if you find it, we'll pay for it. That's what that's supposed to mean. Okay. So Subdivision 4 actually does talk a little bit about, and we're not there's no change. This is existing law. Just talking about how the school district should collaborate with AOE and AHS and BBF. But actually, the nothing in this section shall require district That's to begin to that the contrary piece. That would have. Right. So it's almost like taking that sentence out. Yeah. Because then it's, yeah, directing the school district to work with With. Collaborate with all the partners to ensure. And some of the discussion we heard yesterday about how Addison's doing it really well, I think they're doing it through a regional pre K coordinator, which could be a model that could be expanded.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I was gonna ask, what information do we have? I don't know if that was under a formal regional plan as envisioned by this part of the statute, but do we have examples of regional plans actually being created towards this end?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I think I'm gonna encourage us not to get too far in the weeds on this. Stick at the 50,000 foot level. Because what we want to make sure is that somebody is responsible. And it's education funding, so it should be the school district that's responsible. And those school districts are going to look different at the end of this session or next session or some session. I don't know when. But school districts are going to look different than they do right now. So I don't think we should sort of like what exists right now, but what we can allow to exist in the future.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I guess the reason I ask is do we need to do something to give it more teeth? Because something does exist now, but if it's not actually achieving the goal,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: then we No, need I to with you. I agree with you. That's what I was trying to do in number five. But maybe we do need to strike out the shall nothing shall be construed to require a school district because we actually are requiring a school district to I think I don't know what other people think, but I think a collaboration between AOE, Building Bright Future Council, Human Services, and meeting with the school district, how do we expand capacity here? So can we direct more pre K development funds in this region, that kind of stuff. So I agree that, Representative Bishop, that we actually want to require them to do that, not just to say it's an option.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, it looks like four and five could be worked together. The concepts work together, just making it, But it shall be construed. Well,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think I read that shall be construed to mean that the school district is not required to begin or expand a public program to operate pre K. That's how I read that language. And I'm not hearing you want to require a school district to operate a pre K program. What I'm hearing is you want to require a school district. I think, Cher, when you put it the best, the thing that that resonated the most with me was that the onus is not on the parents, it's on the school district. Yes. And with that direction, I think we can come up with some language for you for next draft.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because the intro does say if it's insufficient, then you shall be concerned. I think that is part of what we want to say. If you can't access it through other mechanisms, then you would have to start your own.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I think that's two.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think you're talking about two different things. We want to assure access. If they can't assure access through private, then yes, they do need to consider public. Okay, okay. The overall goal here is that students in whatever part of the state you live in have access. Equity. Yeah.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Okay. So I have a question.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because it says private and public providers in the lead into number Yes. Yeah, go ahead, Representative Eastes.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: So my question is around the notion of children being able to cross district lines, that that's something we're saying is okay here. Do we need to touch on that because of what might be coming later in Act 73 or do we just leave it alone?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that that's above our pay grade here.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that I was noting the same thing. And the notion in Act 73 is that you have available within your school district. The only time you get to go outside your school district is if there isn't availability in your school district. So if that were to apply, then you would say the same thing. You could access it outside of your school district if your school district didn't have ample supply. Yeah.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I would just add to the conversation, though, that I I personally view it differently for children of this age. I'm looking thinking in the circumstance of Burlington. A lot of people work in Burlington who don't live in Burlington. They may live in Underhill, and their preference is to identify a provider in Burlington so that their three year old is closer to them rather than Yeah. A thirty five, forty minute, whatever.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Differentiate it. I'm thinking of it more from the, I mean, it seems like, of course, I wanna think of it from the family's point of view, I get that. Also then from just the clarifying notions from the school district's point of view about how they're gonna have to move money around and how does that all work. Some things to worried about that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think the concept of, because of the age of the kids that we're talking about, I agree with you, Representative Bishop, that there needs to be more flexibility perhaps than high school level. Yeah. So we're not saying it has to be limited to the school district.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And nothing, and we were keeping that piece of current law that basically allows you to go wherever you want, as long as it's a pre qualified provider. Even if your school district operates the program. And at the education finance changes to our talent tuition program that took place in Act 73 that are contingently effective on a whole host of things that haven't happened yet are separate from the pre K statute.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Oh, okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's only for K through 12. I see, okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so we are gonna move on. We're gonna go, we're still on page three. We're in subsection C now, pre qualification. We're not changing any of the major requirements here. You'll have to have either accreditation through NAEYC, at least four stars or three stars, and a plan to achieve four or more stars. And here we do have a change to prequalification. So under current law is what is now subdivision B in this draft. It just requires a licensed provider to employer contract for the services of at least one teacher who is licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or in early childhood special ed under Chapter 51 of this title period. This draft contemplates two separate requirements. In what is now subdivision 2A, it requires current law for private providers, so shall employ or contract for the services of at least one teacher who is licensed and endorsed in early childhood ed or early childhood special education under Chapter 51 of this title. But now for a pre qualified public provider, they still have to employ or contract for the services of at least one licensed teacher, but that teacher has to be present and actively teaching during the hours pre K education is provided. The same for private. Okay. So this is one of those tiered effective dates. So do you want this to be That

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: would not be effective right away, no. So we have that in this draft.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So right now, you have the language you're looking at in 2A and B, where they're treated differently. 2029, You know how I love to I I know the same section. So section two of this draft has the private and public being treated the same, and that takes effect 07/01/2029. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Thank you.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I just wanna make sure I have clear understanding. This talks about at least one teacher. So if you have three class three pre k classrooms with UPK students in each of those three classrooms, the requirement would be to have one, at minimum, one licensed teacher. So the other two classrooms could operate without a licensed teacher as long as

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And it it actually doesn't they don't even have to be in the classroom. This language doesn't require them to be in the end. They're that's the way they're operating now. So this it it's underlined because it's I'm not I'm not sure why is it underlined here.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, because we bumped the existing language. Oh, because there's an

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: A and a B. Okay, yeah. All we're doing right now is saying you can continue to do things as they are right now, because we realize there's a ramp up period in order to get teachers license. So what is being required in B, as Katie just said, when we get to that section coming up, will also be required for the private providers.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Aren't lines eighteen and nineteen new? Yes. Who is present and actively?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because that's what's happening right now. That's in

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the public.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: In the public school system, have their collective bargaining agreements required them to have teachers qualified to teach in all classrooms in the school. So all this is doing is representing what is happening. It's not a new requirement. It's not a new requirement.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It still says it's not one teacher though. It doesn't say in each classroom. It doesn't say in each.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, it says during the hours pre Ks, the intent is in each classroom has it. Yeah. We need to say

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this Because what's because

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the effect of that? If they're present

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and actively teaching during the hours of pre K, if

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: there are multiple teachers actively teaching if they're not in the classroom.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So the person is actively teaching in one classroom, it doesn't say there has to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be one- I agree with Anne. Don't think it says that.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It doesn't require it.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Of all, what is correct around the collective bargaining agreements? There's also a statute in chapter 16 that requires all teachers teaching in public school to be licensed under Chapter 51. I will just say I'm happy to add the term in each classroom. I have heard conversation in the education committees over what is a classroom. So this is certainly an area that we can have further refinement until you are happy on, but I just wanted to flag that as a non education practitioner, it was surprising to me that the term classroom could be construed as ambiguous, and

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that is what I have heard. I guess it says at least one teacher. I think that's maybe what's hanging represent Donahue and I up. So when it says at least one teacher, you could have three classrooms and that one teacher could be present and actively teaching kindergarten. Do you understand what you're saying? Yes. I was just going

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to say, I think that in the interest of time, I think I understand your intent and we can come up with new language for an react.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, it could be just one teacher per classroom if it weren't for the classroom definition problem.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Or it maybe says something about students are taught by

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was just going to say, I think we have to rework that whole section and just say pre kindergarten education provided pursuant to this section shall be provided by a licensed teacher. Yes.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Question lines 12 through 14 are underlined, but that actually reflects current law.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, that's the question I just asked.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because B is the existing law. I bumped it down and created a new A, which had to be underlined, which now I realize is confusing, and I should have kept a and underlined b.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: You don't

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: have the same wavelength.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: That was that was my understanding, but thank you. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're only up to page five. Yes, is the hours thing.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subsection D, we're on page five, line four. The change here is instead of ten hours of publicly funded pre K, we're looking at twenty hours. Again, that's a policy choice for you all. But the time period and the same constraints about when the tuition can be used is the same as current law. Does anybody know what the average number of hours for a full time elementary student is? Generally,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: on average,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, I was

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: way equivalent to halftime or threefour time or full time or

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have an answer for you. I'm concerned about it setting off some. I'm looking to the chair. You don't know

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is the answer to that question. And AOE is, they don't know either. Well, shouldn't say they don't know. They have given testimony that says it can vary by school district right now.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So while we don't have a uniform school calendar, we don't have a uniform school day either. So that's a little caveat to putting any number of hours into pre K if we don't know how that lines up with what rest of the school would be.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, know it's more than 20. That's all we know.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. It could be slightly more or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. Or what?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, did you have? Oh, no, sorry. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we're still in the tuition section. No changes, no changes. Until we get to page six, we're still in the tuition subsection. Line four, Subdivision three. This is what allows school districts to count pre K children and their average daily membership, which, if we remember, is one of the numbers that is used to calculate how much money a school district gets and how our tax rates are set. We are repealing that section. One of the major changes in this draft is that pre K education would no longer be a part of a school district budget, which means the school districts don't have to count the number of pre K students in their average daily membership, which is a technical term for calculation of long term weighted membership, which is how we arrive at our tax rates, and then under the foundation formula, how you arrive at

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: So repeal because of Act 73?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Nope, we're repealing it because now we are replacing that provision of adding pre K through school district budgets with a categorical grant, which means off the top of the education fund, so it's still coming out of the ed fund. That means it's still funded from the same sources. But instead of being a part of a school district budget, there's going to be a whole separate calculation for pre K students, and it's just going to come in a lump sum grant to the school district. And there's a whole provision for that in here. That is how you pay for school meals. That's how you pay for special education. That's how you pay for transportation reimbursement. Flexible pathways, CTE. Some parts of CTE- We're

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: not creating something new in other words. Just we're rather than making up It was causing a lot of consternation in the Ways and Means Committee thinking about this. And it doesn't do anything negative to access any of those other services. It just simplifies particularly because we have private providers involved. And so will hopefully One of our goals was to equalize the payments between private and public. And so that was an idea that came from some members in Ways and Means. The chair of education and I thought it sounded like a wonderful idea. Anything we can do to simplify things? Although it will cause complications for school districts because it will reduce the number of students in the average daily membership.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: If they're running a pre K now, they'd lose. If they're running a pre K now, correct. And if it's cost less to run it than they're getting per pupil added, then it's going to hurt

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: their budget. Right. And that's a concept that we have to talk about. One of the things that I didn't talk about with Katie and Beth is do we enable school districts to provide more than what is- Paid for. Paid for. Well, what is allowed for here? That comes back to the equity issue again.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because if that's part of a categorical grant, then it's not helping with the equity. It's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: another whole issue, but we'll come back to No, I think that

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: was my question. It was like, could communities elect to pay more?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's a question. Could they pay more? This will deal with what they receive. And that's also another bigger question rolled up into the foundation formula. Will they be allowed to locally spend more and raise that locally? I have a lot of personal opinions about that, necessarily relevant. My personal opinion isn't relevant to this discussion. So I think we do have to come back to whether we're limiting it to the hours that are being paid for or we allow school districts flexibility in that. And there's pros and cons to both, but that's another we will have to address that question. So think about that when we come back to that twenty hours and when we had JFO in here. Okay?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Rule. So requiring I think this is an open policy question for you all over whether there needs to be or whether you want to see any change in the regulation of pre pay. This is a shared program right now, and this draft keeps it a shared program. So the Secretary of Ed and Commissioner for Children and Families shall jointly develop and agree to rules. We keep that the same in here. We just take out references to rules that might no longer be applicable. Tell me what page you're on. Oh, I'm sorry. I am on page seven.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Page six. Yeah, so pages for some reason don't quite align. Some of the With the printout?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's what I have. Have a lot of it. Yeah. Okay, all right.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: One of the earlier ones, it's like, oh no, that's line six, not four, but Oh.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh. So what did, I'm sorry. You didn't make any changes? Well, I think we did.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I don't see anything. Nope,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we didn't. Okay. So we didn't make any changes there. We're on page 10 now for flying. No changes to subsection f. No changes to subsection g. No changes to subsection h, which is the geographic zone concept.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm just going to mention to committee members. So as we're going through and saying no changes, that doesn't mean that we don't necessarily want to make changes. I think that it's kind of our first time seeing this. So we're going to have to sit with it a little bit and make sure that no changes is really what we're intending. Okay. Because we already found one place where that was affiliated case. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I think, yes, that brings us to page 12.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Madam Chair? Yes. A question about these regions. Does that have an impact on the earlier discussion about the current practice of parents having the option of sending their child to whichever outside of districts?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: So what's the interplay between those?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just what it I mean, my only understanding of this is from reading the black letter of the law. So it gives the school board the power to limit the geographic boundaries within which the district will pay tuition. I don't think it changes the determination, like, the parents' choice within those boundaries, but it would prohibit the choice beyond those boundaries. So So

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: the example earlier I gave of Underhill parent who works in Burlington

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: And is opts to have the Underhill the school district in which Underhill sits can opt to draw a line that would put Burlington outside of it, and therefore, the parent would not be able to choose a Burlington based

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Be capable. However, Subdivision 3 in the subsection just So I there are some considerations that need to be made in this subsection if they're going to draw those lines. Subdivision 3 does say that if they do draw those lines and a resident pre K child is unable to access publicly funded pre K within the region, then the parent or guardian may request at minimum discretion the district may pay tuition outside of the region. And then except for the narrow exemption permitting, all other provisions apply. So yes, I think that the scenario that you just said under

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: this

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: language, in the universe of possibilities, that does exist. I have no idea if this is actually happening and whether you keep this concept as a policy choice. And whether we say May should be Xia.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They don't have access. I think that one of the things that we're at a little bit of a disadvantage because this is It's all moving targets still, which we heard in testimony, from BBF and from DCF yesterday saying, try to change as little as possible given that there's still a lot of things moving. I think that, bless you, I think that that is a recognition that depending upon what happens in the bigger universe of education, we may need to come back and revisit this again. So I understand what they're saying, but I also think that there are changes that we can make that can improve access and equity at the current time. But I think this is a question. It makes a difference on where the school district boundaries are drawn.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They're

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: pretty small right now. But the pre K region this is a different notion. So the pre K region can encompass several school districts right now. And so do we keep that concept of pre K region or we just go with school district? Do you know what I'm saying? Because the school districts are gonna be bigger. I don't see any version of anything where school districts stay the same or are smaller. I only see them getting bigger. So I think that's something for us to think about. And it's one of those things, do we leave it the way it is for now? Or do we change it to just school district? Or we leave it the way it is and come back to it? That's a decision for us to make. And remember, we're making this bill is gonna go through a lot of other committees before it reaches its final. And I am sure that they will change whatever it is that we come up with. Don't get too wedded to whatever it is we put in there.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: I think I'd also in this particular conversation we're talking about, we're talking about places where there aren't where there's plenty of access and people are choosing to have access in different ways. But the overriding value here is that we're trying to make sure that the place in the state where there is no access, that's where we really wanna focus. So it's all like, I think we could leave this alone for now.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But we are also wanting, I think at this age to ensure that parents have maximum flexibility. And so you were given to Chittenden County. There's a steady stream of traffic between Central Vermont and Burlington going in both directions at the Vermont version of rush hour in the morning and in the evening. I can see these Chittenden County and Central Vermont are not gonna be in the same school district, whatever map is drawn. And so that's sort of a real life kind of example where I can see parents working in Burlington, living in Waterbury and deciding there's an opening at the Y and I can access it there. And I work two blocks from there. So I think we need to allow for that maximum flexibility. But I think whether we think about needing to do anything with this pre K region now, I think it will become obsolete in new version of education. But ability to access beyond your school district will not become obsolete. Do you know what I'm saying? Yes. Yeah. So whether we wait for the rest of the stuff to then come back and remove pre K regions, or we remove them now and just talk about school districts, whatever those boundaries are, and parents having the flexibility to move within the districts. Yeah. So just something to think about between now and tomorrow. Good.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Do you want to do sections here?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Sure. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Page are we on?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're on page 12 at line four, the new sections. So this is your tiered effective date. So this brings us back again to amending the language about how many licensed teachers are present. If you remember the language we looked at earlier, we divided it into a private provider section that was going to maintain the status quo for a certain number of years. And then there was the public provider section that had the addition of having the teacher present and actively teaching during the hours of pre K education as provided. So as of 07/01/2029, this amendment would treat both types of providers the same, meaning that private that private providers would no longer be on a legacy path for lack of a better word.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then section three, if we go to page 13, line four. So just before we move to sex and grief, that's so And then anything that we change previously in B would also change here. Yes. Okay.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Just want to share my concern about whether we fully understand the current field and whether we have, how big of a jump this is for private providers.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And whether that's sufficient time. Yeah, I'm gonna contend that if we're gonna pay them more, you have to have higher quality patients. It's like, you're get your cake, you have to

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: And again, I'm being

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, I know, you're trying to be sensitive to that.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Sensitive to that. I wondered if we, at whatever opportunity we get to hear from private providers that this is perhaps a greater obstacle than we're anticipating, is there a tiered payment approach? If you're following the current guidelines or requirements for presence of a licensed teacher but not in every classroom, you get x. If you have a licensed provider in every classroom, x plus. Still an incentive to move towards that quality of the licensed teacher in every classroom, but may recognize some realities that I'm speculating about at this point. I think I'm just overall concerned about doing anything that would move against our broader goal of maintaining increasing access. I don't wanna limit or lose any current qualified providers in UPK system because of this.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm just gonna be transparent that this is also trying to alleviate concerns that there are from some in the building about the use of public education dollars in private enterprise at all. So having that same requirement might be a way to address It removes some of the arguments, let's just put it that way. It removes some of the arguments saying that there are lesser qualified people in private pre K, which is then one of the arguments. So we gotta weigh all those things. I understand what you're talking about. And we're going to get an opportunity to talk a lot about that in the early childhood education licensure bill. And I share those same concerns, to be honest, and how that We have to remember that in the private world, we're not only thinking about the whys, but we're also thinking about home based pre K, which there are some. Thank you for continuing to bring that up. Mean, I think we need to think about how that works.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section three, we're gonna go to page 13, line four. This is may be a policy question that you have already decided, I am just not aware of it or I missed it. But I have a question for drafting purposes of whether of when you want these changes to take effect because of the changes that you have made in Act 73. So the way I have drafted this draft is that the changes that we just walked through with the exception of Section two. So Section one would take effect 07/01/2026. And section three would also take effect 07/01/2026. And that is a change to the definition of average daily membership in your school finance chapter in title 16. So this is the section that spells out how you calculate average daily membership. In subdivision C, on line nine, page 13, is for how you calculate average daily membership for pre K students. But we're pulling pre K students out of the calculation of average daily membership. But this definition includes children receiving essential early education lumped in with pre K students. And that is special education services for children between the years of three and five. So pre public school, essentially, preschool special education years. Right now, when you're calculating average daily membership, you lump pre K students and children receiving triple E services together. What Section three does is it pulls them apart. So we're removing reference to pre K students and we're keeping children who are receiving essential early education in. If you want all of these changes to take effect when the foundation formula kicks in, 07/01/2028, assuming the contingencies are met, then we would not need Section three. We would jump right to Section four. You can see the big change here. It's the exact same changes to subdivision C, but you can see on page 14, line two, average daily membership, there's only one sentence there or one lead in sentence. But if you scroll back up to page 13, line five, you can see that the term average daily membership is defined differently. And that's because section three is current law and section four is contemplating the changes that were made in Act 73 for the foundation formula. So if you want the changes you made to section one to take effect on 07/01/2026, you would need both of these sections. If you only want the pre K program changes to take effect with the foundation formula or a future state, then you would only

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: need section four. So I would say that in talking with the chair of ways and means, that would be her preference, would you make them at the same time? So I have a question. So a moment ago, you just said special education is done through categorical grant. So if special education is done through categorical grant, why do we need to deal with this in the average daily membership? Special education for K through 12.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not pre K. Triple E is still accounted for in school district budgets by counting triple E students the same way you count pre K students. And then K through 12 special education is provided through a census block grant.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. And do we know why that is? I don't. I either. But maybe we can ask AOE that. Or maybe I can ask Emily Kornheiser, Representative Kornheiser. Part of one of my other goals is to have pre K stand out where it needs to stand out, but not where it doesn't need to stand out. And because I think that as a body, we want to send the message that pre K is part of education. Just that. I just don't think can say anything more. And I think that the more that we do things that aren't necessarily related to the considerations we need to make because of the very young age of these students, I'm wondering out loud now. Sorry, you're hearing my brain process work, which isn't very organized sometimes, about why when we did that revision to how special ed was funded, why pre K wasn't included at that time. And I don't know the answer to that. We need more information.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Why would we want to split it now rather than both

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: being I would want them both pull that, that's what I'm saying. That's what I'm contemplating. That seems to make more sense. I know Triple E is different than regular special education. I know that. But it is special education for young kids. And I'm just wondering if it has to be that way or if we're just choosing for it to be that way. And that requires conversation with people who aren't in the room right now. So I think if we can just put some big question marks about that, don't I think we should assume that we're going to keep it the way it is. We might be making a recommendation to make it different in order to be the same as K to 12, if that's possible. If it's not possible, then Because I know there are different rules for EEE services. I would have a lot of questions. And

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I am not your education finance attorney, but I know enough to be dangerous. So I do think this is a conversation that warrants talking to ways in me. That's Bringing John and Dan Crow in on. The complicating factor is, One of the complicating factors is the foundation formula contemplates funding special education right now through a wait and not a census grant.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You are getting a recommendation back from the contractor that JFO has hired, the 45A report of Act 73. And so there may be recommendations in there to keep special education funded through weights, to change those weights, or to go back to some sort of grant, categorical aid grant. I have no idea what that recommendation, but the way Act 73 was when it was passed was special ed is now a weight. So I'm wondering if

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we could have language that just says whatever is agreed upon, that pre K is included.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that would be, you have a beautiful opportunity where you have this study ongoing right now. So definitely if you're having JFO in, perhaps something to flag for them on the scope of work for their contractor. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Don't want to limit ourselves to just saying, well, pre K has to be different. If it maybe doesn't have to be different. If it does, then we live with that. But

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: okay, thank you. And can I ask a question related to answering my question of when all of this, which is a super clear term, would take effect and when you talked about it taking effect at the same time as the foundation formula, that would be all of the changes contemplated in this bill, correct? Or just the funding piece? The teacher piece aside, the twenty hours, all of the other changes we talked about to Section eight twenty nine. I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think that I don't know the answer to that question right this moment. I feel like I need to consult with education and ways and means. I know on the payment side, ways and means, chair has been very clear with me, do at the same time. On the other stuff, the chair of education has I I need to consult with the chair of education to know whether that makes it easier. And I don't know what other what other dates they're gonna come up with for whatever other things they're gonna add to this bill. So I think that whatever we put in here is likely to change, and we're gonna need to just track that closely to make sure that people are thinking about the pre K tariff as well. So I don't really have an answer for you at this point in time. Understood.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so we've gone over the average daily membership piece. I'm on page 14, section five. This is the definition statute for your education finance chapter, the master definitions for chapter 133. Right now, pre kindergarten child, which is a term that we're seeing in the ADM calculation, is defined as including pre K children and triple E children. I amended this definition to just be children receiving essential early education now because you don't need a definition for pre K children in this master definition list because section six, page 15, line six, creates a brand new grant program. I feel like that was

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: clear as mud. Yeah. And I'm trying to read it at the same time you're So doing child receiving essential early ed means a child who is three or four years of age and who is three or four years of age and who is receiving essential early ed. That seems very circular to me.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I think that's just a mistake I made. Okay, all right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So you're saying we don't need to define pre K child. Correct. That's essentially what you're saying here. Okay. You're just saying three and four year olds receiving triple E, that's who they are. Yep. Okay. I think I got that. Thank you.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry. No, no, that's fine. Section six is your pre kindergarten education grant. I think this section needs some work. This is a starting point for you all. So we start with definitions for the section. And we got to get real cute here because we can't rely on the concept of average daily membership. We're coming up with our own concept for how to count prekindergarten children.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: enrollment means the number of prekindergarten children who are enrolled in a prequalified public prekindergarten provider and a prequalified private provider, as that term is defined in Section eight twenty nine, and on whose behalf the school district pays tuition pursuant to subsection 829D of this title on October 1. So October 1 is generally, it's like the first ten days in October where everyone's doing their kid counts for education funding. And that's not contemplated to change any place else? Not yet. Here we've added a new definition of pre kindergarten child for this section. A child who is four years of age, and we're going to change that to three, three or, or who is five years of age, but who is not yet eligible to enroll. I flagged that as a policy choice for you all. Who is enrolled in a pre kindergarten program offered by or through a school district pursuant to rules adopted under age 29 of this title. And then two, you're going to be doing this count on a two year average enrollment. That's how we calculate almost all of our education funding is two year average enrollment or two year average daily membership.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Just trying to smooth out any Right. Okay.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: The question about that, if we are trying to expand access, might that number be a little more fluid than your average k through 12 grades? And so is a two year average still appropriate?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's a question for JFO. And I will put whatever number they tell you is best in there. That is really a fiscal perspective more than a legal perspective. So two year average enrollment means the average enrollment of pre kindergarten children of the two most recently completed school years. We're trying to leave no ambiguity on how you're counting these kiddos and what school years you're taking into account. Then we get to subsection B on page 16, the grant. Annually, the secretary shall pay a pre kindergarten education grant to each school district in an amount determined by multiplying the district's two year average enrollment of pre K children by the statewide rate. Flagging that is a big policy choice for you all. I don't have any direction that you're not keeping the current statewide rate and having the statewide rate calculated as it currently would be, that is a policy choice for you all, which may be adjusted regionally, that is established annually through a process jointly developed and implemented by AHS and AOE. That's the current language for the determination of the statewide rate.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm not sure about that. What is the process in Act 73? And Katie, I just have a text from Ways and Means asking if you're able to go over there. Pretty loud. Oh, and it's for our bill, apparently. Yeah, we have to go to judiciary. Oh, you have to go to judiciary. I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: told him a quarter of.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, you told me, oh, you've been, okay, okay. I told her that we're almost done, so, okay. So question. How does Act 73 treat foundation formula? Doesn't it say established by the General Assembly?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, yes. The foundation formula is set as a base that is arrived at through calculations that I am not right enough to understand. Yes, but there are still under Act 73 a number of categorical aid grants. Right, and I guess what I'm trying to understand

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is What it's saying here is that AOE and AHS would determine the grant amount.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. The grant amount is based on the statewide rate, is the amount of money the kiddo gets, the family gets. For this draft, I have kept the statewide rate the same. So the statewide rate is determined by AHS and AOE. But then you take that rate and you multiply it by the two year average enrollment of pre K students, and that's what the district gets. Yeah, I'm sorry. What

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I was meaning was the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: rate by AOE. That's a policy choice for you all.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right. So I just like that.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Madam Chair, if could, I would just flag again for your consideration. I think you were reviewing something when I was making this point earlier, the two year average, if we're trying to create more pre k, let's take a district in Northeast Kingdom that moves from 50 to 100 spots and we take a two year average, do we really wanna be paying them? They've created growth quickly. It's exactly what we want. Paying them at an average 75.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is that fair, right?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Is fair? And I think it's just not as we hope perhaps it's not going to be as static as K through 12 because we want to fuel growth in pre K. So I'm just a bit concerned about a two year average and whether that's going to end up underfunding.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm wondering if there could be language that says, unless there's a certain don't know how to measure it between the two years that's greater than blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So that allows for what you're talking about. Because in the couple areas of the state where we have kind of pre K deserts, we would hope that we could increase it on a faster pace than maybe in other places. So let's flag that for JFO. Or I don't know, would that be a question to ask them? I think so, yes. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I think that would be a question for JFO. And if you want to send me an invite for when you have JFO so I'm in the room, if I am not otherwise occupied, I'd be happy to be here. Okay. Thank you. Laurie just heard that. Good luck with my calendar.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, all right, I got it.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there's a grant. I have not built in any language that is prescriptive on how school districts disseminate that money because I think it's covered in section eight twenty nine that the rate is paid to the program. The statewide rate is the tuition. Say that again. I have not put any language in here. It just says this grant is just to the school districts. There's nothing in this section of law or section of the bill that then says, and then with that money school districts, you

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: do X, Y, and Z with the money. And we didn't do that because?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I didn't do that because, A, I haven't received any policy direction that would be different than what happens in current law, which is already contemplated in 08/29, and that is that the tuition payment is the statewide rate. So I think it's already contemplated in 08/29. If That make

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it equal. That's the only thing I'm really concerned about. I want to make sure that for the provision of services, that it's an equal amount, that there's no There shouldn't be any judgment that's applied by the school district in what it is that they contract for if they have to pay a private provider.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Think that's Maybe I shouldn't have said anything. I think it's already contemplated here. But if you deviate from the statewide rate, if you make a policy choice that the statewide rate is not going to be the number you multiply your two year average enrollment by, then we may need to make changes elsewhere as well. As long as you stick with the statewide rate, I think Section eight twenty nine is clear that tuition payments, whether it's to a public or a private provider, is the statewide rate. Can you point me to where it says that? An eight twenty nine.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You're saying eight twenty nine. That's like saying the little

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. That's section one. It's the pre K statute. Okay. Section Alright. Let's see. Tuition is subsection D. So on page five. Line four, tuition. I'm on line 10. Tuition paid under this section shall be at a statewide rate, which may be adjusted regionally. It is established annually. It's the same language that appears the grant section that I just walked through. And all I'm trying to flag is because this draft keeps the statewide rate, don't think we need to make any changes in section one.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We aren't

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: ready for it. I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: understand what you're saying from a legal perspective. I'm not sure that the I don't feel as confident that the policy would be clear enough. I feel like we need to make a statement someplace that a public provider and a private provider for the provision of pre K are paid the same amount.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will add language to that effect for the next draft.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Share, is it current, the $3,900 is paid to a provider?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. So they set the tuition rate, but they set the tuition rate for private providers.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Right. I'm not sure I understood this correctly. But in the JFO report, in the review of early chalker, it talks about a $6,900 figure that's envisioned that's going be triggered by Act 73.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't read that report, so I can't comment on that. Act 73 didn't make any changes to pre kindergarten education. So I don't know off the top of my head

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what that means. So right now, under current law, pre K providers in the private sector are paid, I guess I would need to ask this question to JFO, but I think they must be paid what is contemplated here in statute as the statewide rate. Correct. That's my understanding. Right. And the earning capacity, as my colleagues in ways and means will tell me, is double that essentially for school districts on average.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because of how you currently fund pre K through school district budgets. So

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm feeling even more that I would like that statement to be explicit about That would be in statute. Understood. I don't want there to be any interpretation. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we're going to go back to page 16. Is subsection C. I'm just going to tell you that there's an inflator in here. Move on. Is this the same inflator that we use everywhere else? Okay. And that's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the same inflator that's contemplated for the foundation formula? I believe so. That's all good. If something changes about that, then we should make sure to change this language as it moves.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. And when do you have

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: JFO coming in? We're scheduling them. Don't know. Oh, okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So working on then we have effective dates. I can already tell you we need to make changes to this or maybe make changes to this based on this conversation.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I don't know the answer to that question. Think it's more likely that they'll be all affected. I'm not positive about that, or whenever the foundation goes into effect. Don't worry. I know. I'm just like Yeah. All right. That was a lot and a lot of questions for us to contemplate. We're going to take a break right now, and we will come back. Laurie, when do we have represent Burrows? Is that okay? She's scheduled at 11:15. Can still Okay. Answer So why don't we come back at 11:15? Let's take a little bit longer break. And that will also give you a chance before we launch into committee discussion, a chance to maybe read through the bill look at things that where we said no change, to make sure that that's that, and to think about some of the concepts that we've talked about. So why don't we say 11:15? And at 11:15, we might have represent boroughs on the ADA coordinator bill, and we might

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: not.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But we'll have her at