Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Okay. Welcome. Good morning to House Human Services. This morning, we are continuing our discussion on Pre K. So a little update for folks. We have a little bit more time, which we're going to need. We have a reprieve till next week, which is good. And other committees are continuing to work on what will be inserted into this bill. So the lack of having physical presence of the bill is not deterring them from their continuing work. So my new schedule is hopefully to get it out by the end of Wednesday next week. And so we will hopefully proceed along that line. In the meantime, I've received a request from the Vermont Principals Association, the Vermont Superintendents Association, and the Vermont School Boards Association, commonly known as the V's to testify, but they can't come until Wednesday. There's lots of education stuff happening in the building right now. And so we are scheduling them for next Wednesday. And JFO, given the busyness with all the money bills this week, they cannot come until next week either. And it is looking less and less likely that we will be making sort of major changes that would impact anything in terms of education funding for FY 'twenty seven. Because I think as we move through this, I think it's going become clear that we should be looking at things from the perspective of implementation at the same time other aspects are being implemented. And there's not going to be any major shift in foundation formula or anything like that for FY27. So I think that will make the JFO information more for future looking, I guess I would say, about what would the impact be if we increased hours to twenty hours a week, for instance, as opposed to us actually taking action to do that, unless people feel really strongly about that as we go through the bill. So I wanted to give you that update on timing and on future witnesses.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: We hear from each of the three pillars of the bees or sort of one representative?

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: That's a good question. We're extending the invitation. They the request came as the three of them together, but that doesn't mean that they will testify together. They seem to be running triplets. But they, I think, are trying to coalesce and present a unified position when it comes to education reform. Wait and see until Wednesday after Laurie's in contact with them, and they will let us know how much time they need.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I'm I'm thinking out loud here. So sorry if this is not fully formed thoughts, but that will get us the public setting. A lot of input from the public school setting for for pre k. I'm I don't know if there's and we're getting from many of the witnesses questions the perspective on the privates, but there's is there I don't know where we might get a voice.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: They don't have an association. Yeah. Their their voice has been who we heard from yesterday in First Children's Finance, as well as what you heard from the system perspective from Building Bright Futures and from what we are hearing from the deputy commissioner. So I don't Because this is a It would be difficult to pick out one or two providers and have them speak on behalf of the system. So we have to think about the systems thinkers for that. You know what I mean?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Just come up with more questions.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Represent Steady. How about pediatricians? Does anybody talk to

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: them about how this affects a three and four year old?

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I have not spoken to any pediatricians, I think that would be important. Yeah, I think that we'll think about that as we go through. Thank you, Deputy Commissioner, for being here again this morning and for coming back. Now that we have a draft that you can look at that wasn't present previously. And do you have the latest one, the one that posted this morning?

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: No, I don't have the last week

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: for this one. Because we did make changes. If you have a You have it sooner, sure. You might wanna pull it. You don't need to pull it up on the screen, but you might wanna pull it up because we'll probably be asking some clarifying questions as we reference that draft, draft 3.1. So one of the questions that came up, and we're trying to figure out what to do with this, is what is happening in the Senate with regard to the Northeast Kingdom. Yes. And we understood that the language was primarily language that came from DCF working with AOE, but that you were kind of the main spokesperson on that. Yes. So wanted to ask you, I guess, for some background on it and how we might figure out how to incorporate that into this bill, because I don't think it'll end up standing alone as a bill.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Yep. Okay. Great. That's the first question. Okay, perfect. So good morning, everybody. I'm Jenna McLaughlin, deputy commissioner in the Department of Children and Families overseeing the Child Development Division. Glad to be with you again. And I made a little note what we were on I guess that was Tuesday to give you an update on this. And I forgot as the conversation moved along. But the specific issue at hand is in Essex County, So way over on the border of New Hampshire, there is a school district, the NEK Choice School District, that is a non operating district for K through 12. Many of those children attend public school or get their K-twelve education in New Hampshire. And there has not been a way for those children to access pre kindergarten in New Hampshire, even though they were going to go on to attend kindergarten at those same schools. So that's been a longstanding issue. They've been flagging it. Finally, this year, it's in front of us. And I think we can address it with statute. It just requires, I think, a relatively small statute change. The initial bill that was put forth on the Senate side looks different than where we are with S-fourteen now. The initial bill asked the agencies with defining geographically making a definition of a geographically isolated school district and making definitions for how creating the standards for what it would mean to pre qualify a pre kindergarten program in New Hampshire. And we consulted DCF, as well as with AOEs, folks on the early ed side, as well as their legal counsel. We talked, we thought that there might be a simpler way to do it. Because asking us to define a geographically isolated district could become kind of a fraught exercise.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: And people could have opinions about that.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Yes. Right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: And it's also the kind of

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: thing that sometimes grows legs and shows up someplace when we were only trying to define it for this real specific need. Totally understand. So we wanted to try to figure out how to avoid that. And also, it was really tricky to figure out how to anticipate all the potential permutations that could come from having a different structure in New Hampshire for pre qualifying programs, pre kindergarten programs. Administration so AOACV recommended a different tactic, which is what you see now in S-two 14. I will say this was done in conversation with school board members from the NEK Choice School District who have been flagging this issue. I went out to Essex County and met with them.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: We spent four or five hours together,

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: talking about the issue, actually visiting with the Lancaster School District on the New Hampshire side to try to understand what their questions would be about this kind of arrangement, and reconvened again after the visits with them. And so that that school district, those school district board members are in support of what the proposal was or is. And the key factors there, and also just listening quickly to the testimony from yesterday, it is more targeted language to a specific school district. Because of all the changes that are happening with districts and pre K and all those sort of things. We didn't want to try to box ourselves. Didn't want to create again, we wanted to be really specific and narrow to what the specific problem is. And there was even on the Senate side, I will say there was even a discussion of whether or not they should put a sunset date on this provision. Anticipated my question. Yeah. So I don't think that they ended up doing that, but that was one of the questions of, is this just a temporary measure to get us through the next, I don't know, whatever it is, three to four years as the system changes? So that was one option. We did look to see if there were any other districts that had been indicating they were having a similar problem. But we didn't find any most districts that are serving K through five are operating districts. So there's only a couple of non operating districts that are serving the youngest children. Like once you get to middle school and high school, there's more that are on the borders, but not specifically to elementary school, typically.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: What about those school districts that are shared between Vermont and New Hampshire?

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: So they did not flag this as an issue for them. So we did not dive into I don't know exactly what the solution is there. And they didn't flag it for us as an issue. So we didn't JULIEN Jump in. Didn't pursue it. Okay.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: All

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: right. And then we decided our recommendation was to handle this as a waiver process, so that the saying to the school district it's on them to tell us, Okay, here are the 11 requirements associated with becoming a pre K program. You tell us how you think those are being met in New Hampshire. Substantially met, I think, was the language that we met in And New so they can tell us how they're assessing safety, assessing quality, assess and just, again, rather than us trying to anticipate what those are in New Hampshire and knowing that they might change without us, unless we're monitoring all the rules in New Hampshire, we're not going to know what they are. But trying to just handling it that way. Again, hopefully, a not very I think a lot of it can be fairly simple. But we didn't think that we should just say automatically. We wanted to maintain the visibility, so the request is a very simple waiver application. The other reason why we thought about that is because New Hampshire programs might be if you really want to achieve access, the exact structure that we have right now related to prequalification and hours and tuition rate. We know that that needs some work. That's what talking we've about. And so again, we wanted to be able to have that school district say, Okay, here's our plan, because this is what's actually going to give us access in New Hampshire and not tie them into because the original bill said it would be exactly what Vermont's statewide tuition rate is for the New Hampshire. And it was just like, I don't know that that might not achieve access. So that's why our recommendation was to go in that direction. And we did talk about it, had these conversations with Senate Ed. I think it sounds like the similar questions that you guys used it. And Emily Simmons, the chief legal counsel at AOE, and I worked on it together. Thank you. If you said this at the beginning, I

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: might have missed it. Why did you only land on public and not private as well, since that sort of distinguished that Yes. Yes.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: So there's three reasons for that. So One is there's no statewide public pre K in New Hampshire right now. So there was no statewide program for us to hang our program on to. So there something obvious that we could hang it on to.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Individual school districts decide on their own whether to do it, is that Individual what you're

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: school district decide on their own whether to do that. And in the area that we were talking to and in the school districts that we talked to, they weren't currently contracting out for any of their prekindergarten services. So again, there just wasn't something natural for us to hook onto. Second reason is because maybe there's just two reasons. And then the second reason is because in looking at the landscape of the potential private programs in New Hampshire, most of them were independent schools that we have now said no longer will be able to accept children for K once they're at kindergarten. So it felt very like we would really be opening up a can of worms to go back to those schools and say, but you can take them for pre kindergarten, but you can't have them kindergarten.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So setting up something that is likely not to be able to continue. Right. So we felt like

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: we didn't want to go down that realm. And so then the third thing, so then it was, Okay, so if what we're talking about is only maybe a couple of private programs that we don't even know if they have licensed teachers on staff right now it just felt like that we'd have to set up a different way to monitor them. It felt like a lot for like, it could be a lot for potentially nothing. So that's why that was our recommendation at this point. I think, again, we could and in talking with the school district representatives, they initially were like, well, what about all of these other places? And they did say, Okay, they saw the complication there and thought this was the right next step. One of the questions that came on the Senate side was, well, can you guarantee these kids have access to pre K? And I said, I can tell you that they would be in a much more similar boat to the kids in Vermont. Right now, we don't guarantee access for anybody to pre K. We've talked about that. So I think it creates conditions for that district to do the work that would be needed to set up those partnerships in New Hampshire and pre K. And

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: it says, notwithstanding the law to the contrary, and it says paying tuition. So I'm presuming that they're talking about the same payment rate would go to New Hampshire as goes to

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: private pre K. I think that what we're imagining is that they might be able to apply for a waiver on that provision if what they say is no school in New you know what mean? That every pre K program, the school based pre K programs in New Hampshire are fifteen hours, and the district has said that they're not willing to accept less than x. Right now, we know. I mean, this is one of those things. Right now, we know school districts are able to build their budgets with more money for pre k. For now. For now. I understand. But again, if we're in

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: a for now world, This is a for now bill

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: right now. Yes, I get it. And they're also right, that school, the LDA, they're gonna be receiving weights and other things. So they're gonna have a little. They're gonna have more Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So we don't know, is really a thing.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: So it was trying to create conditions for them to work it out.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So that waiver can be a It says any rule provision. And I didn't know if that includes tuition. If tuition is actually the dollar amount doesn't seem logical that it would be set in rule. Maybe the procedure, but the dollar amount. I know what the rule says, because tuition amounts change. So you wouldn't change the rule every time you change a tuition amount.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Right. No, it says, yeah. So I think we did also explore whether or not a better option was to just sort of say, in those cases, should they just be able to treat pre K children more similar to how they would treat K-twelve children that they're tuitioning as another option there? And the recommendation for the Well, AOE was that was just that that was gonna be even more complicated

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: way to address it. Well, that's very helpful. Thank you for that background and sort of the thought process that went into why this was landed on. Yesterday, I said that I'm not sure if we should put it in here today. I'm thinking that we probably should put it in here because one of the things I think that we should add is a provision that says that essentially this all goes away with whatever new this would need to be reconsidered under a new governance structure. So I think that we should probably be suggesting that. It's very helpful. Thank you. So We we heard a bit of test and you said you listened to testimony from yesterday. We've heard some testimony. I think that, you know, sort of in a head nod around the table, People have agreed to keep the three year olds where they're at. We're trying to get information about what it would cost to increase four year olds' access to more hours. We don't have that yet. We have a draft here that says 20, but it could be 15, it could be 10. It could be staying at the same. So we don't have any sort of decision points on that at this point in time. But I'm just wondering if you had other feedback on, for instance, one of the things that we have under consideration is the changing in the five years of age, but is not yet enrolled versus eligible to enroll. And just wondering if you had some thoughts about that. And we haven't made any decision about that. We haven't had markup on the bill yet. But these are things that are on the table. And since we now have a language in front of us, I thought it would be helpful because honestly, you're our resident expert in Penhope.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: there definitely was a lot of discussion on this point in the early days of 01/1966. And because some districts were doing different things, that there was a clarification memo put out by AOE and CDD at that time, really confirming that it was about five year olds not yet enrolled in kindergarten, and that there was sort of even if they might have been eligible, and for the reason that kids develop at different speeds. I I I would say that has been the agency's position. And at the time, I think some school districts were handling it as you need to have a special note. You need to have some sort of an assessment that is saying you get a special dispensation to not enroll in kindergarten yet and still get pre K benefits. Again, where we landed was, that's not what the law says. And the administration did not choose to pursue clarification in the law at that time. I haven't had this specific question. I haven't had this specific conversation with the agency at this point. I would also say this is something that has come up actually related to childcare financial assistance as well. And so I just would flag that if a decision a different decision here might also impact some of that because we talk about, I will say, childcare financial assistance perspective, we were like, we do not want to get into the business of getting special permission slips related to behavioral concerns and whether or not this kid deserves kindergarten, like should be in, deserves an extra year of pre K or not. We, on our side, made that determination.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So what does that mean? Does that mean that you allow five year olds who are eligible to

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: do If they're not enrolled in kindergarten, they're not enrolled. Yeah. Okay, that's why we use a CCFA fee, that's helpful.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead. I was just curious where the, like, what prompted the potential for that change?

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I don't recall at this point in time. I think it was another effort to try to reduce pre K expenses, to be honest. I would just say I

[Erin Davis (Chief Academic Officer, Vermont AOE)]: would concur with the deputy commissioner. It just makes sense to

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: leave it as is just because of developmental realities of life. And we don't want to be that nitpicky on families and the decisions that they make that they know are best for their families.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Well, in kindergarten, it's not a requirement. Exactly. Yeah, I

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: think you might hear a little yeah, that's been part of the conversation. Well, it's pretty at the pre K committee and with the agency in general, as we start talking about what are the hours of pre K? What is the enrollments? I'm just like, well, we actually don't have those things established for kindergarten yet. So it's all got to move together. Right. Right. It's like

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: We don't have any intent of requiring pre K, and we're not going to get into K because that's not our jurisdiction. But that's currently still half day or full day, depending on district kindergarten.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: I think the district can set the hours. But again, I'm not Again, yes, as policies are not fine.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: We're not even going to talk about school day. What constitutes a full day or a full week, because that we're gonna veer away from that language. Let's just put it that way. So, okay. What other questions do we have for the deputy commissioner in terms of things that we went through yesterday? One of the things that, as you were just saying, there isn't anybody response nobody has responsibility for ensuring that there's access. And we did see some good information from First Children's Finance yesterday about there's actually more availability than I previously thought, particularly in areas where people maybe are not accessing what's available. So if this isn't my only personal opinion, it's not the opinion of the committee, but if we're paying out of the Ed Fund for this service, and we're not proposing that that change, It seems as though we would be putting local school districts, if we want to ensure that children have access, that we would be putting local school districts, whatever that district design looks like in the future, to have the responsibility of assuring that there is access for a rebate in their region, whatever that region happens to be. And I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts about that.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Yeah, I think that in terms of ensuring for the school district, I think it is tricky in this moment of saying we're going to potentially handle funding in a different way, and in fact, cap funding, to also add on this additional responsibility in this moment. That said, I will say the other piece I would say is that we have seen in communities that seem to be doing a better job with pre K access is a robust level of regional coordination. So sometimes that looks like school districts getting together and hiring somebody as the regional pre K coordinator who does understand what is happening in the schools, what is happening in community based programs, who are the kids, and they're looking at that on that wider basis. I think I mentioned that on Tuesday. And so there are some examples of that, that I think that that seems to be associated with kids getting community level planning, kids having the access that they need, some streamlined administration. So I think if we were thinking about what do we how it would happen, I think there's an example there. But again, whether or not that's how to think about the timing of this and the mandate to the district, I think that is a question. The other thing I'll offer is one of the things in that we the project that I talked about on Tuesday related to working with some consultants for a CD, AOE, and PVF led project related to UK systems alignment. One of those key questions is, what is the role of the state, the school district, and the program? What should different entities be responsible for? And do we have the right mix? I think we know that there's some challenges, so there needs to be some tweaks to that. But I think that that is definitely one of the questions that we would interrogate during that process of who if the goal is to ensure access all children, which, again, is one of the things that we said, we want this to work consistently for families, who should have that responsibility is for doing that coordination. And is it the school district? Or is it the state? Or what's the right mix there? So it is definitely it's like, I'm sorry, it's on the list. Sorry.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: That works to be completed December. Yeah, it should

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: be done by December, yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Seems like a safe place would be, obviously, have to have this bill out before December. Our top goal is to ensure access for the students who are eligible for it. And so think that maybe what would So right now in our draft language, have on page three, a school district shall be responsible for ensuring. And this language will change as this bill makes its way through, depending upon last I heard yesterday, they're talking about some version of coordinated regions. I don't know. But sort of like what you're talking about. Of course, my screen just went. Sorry, sorry, it's got it. It says the school district, so whatever version of that there is would be responsible for ensuring resident pre K children have access to publicly funded pre K either by operating or assisting a family to identify a pre qualified private provider. And that we do allow that to be located in another school district, depending upon work schedules and their very young children and that kind of stuff. So what would you think about if we said the state via AOE and DCF with school districts.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Mean, I I the same answer. I mean, it's the same answer probably the school district have. I'm just like, oh. I think the thing to remember, just from the state's perspective, for pre kindergarten education is that, I mean, the CDD team, no staff that are dedicated to pre kindergarten education. It's all about using the systems that we have now and leveraging those. And then at the AOE side, I think they have three people, four people dedicated three people on their pre K team, on their early ed team. So just flagging that. Part of the challenge here has been some of the state So I think adding a new responsibility to the state potentially is also something that that would be, again, from our perspective, be, again, part of the work that we would be doing in the alignment piece is sort of saying, Okay, well, if these are the responsibilities, what does that mean from a resource perspective? But I will say, I think that the sort of like with Essex County, it's like, I went, I learned a bunch. I said, Okay, here again, here's what I think you might need to have the conditions to be successful. But it really is that local intelligence and that local planning and that local relationship building. Even when I was in Essex County, my first meeting of the day was with Head Start in the Northeast Kingdom. And they have a couple Head Start programs in Essex County, one in Gilpin and one in Island Ponds. So not all the way over on the New Hampshire well, anyway, Gilpin is on the New Hampshire border. And I realized that the Head Start folks, they didn't know the NEK Choice School District folks. And I was just like, oh, well, my next meeting's with them in an hour. Do you want to come? And so now they're connected. But again, it's like that needs to happen at the local that work does need to happen at the local level. So I would say that I do think that the coordination needs to happen in identifying the solutions will be

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: in those So I think that we get to that on that same page in number four that says, if the supply is insufficient to meet the demand, that the district shall begin begin or to expand a program to satisfy the demand and may work with AOE and AHS and the local BBF council.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: And I would just say, I am cautious because I haven't had the chance to connect with AOE specifically. I get that. Is there going to be here shortly? Think

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I'm understanding your dilemma, and hopefully you're understanding ours that it's a primary goal and we can't just leave things the way they are because the inequities are too great, although not as big as previously thought. Think there's a And it's also one of the things that I think, and I'm not sure how we might address that here or not, but I'm hoping that PBF can help with this, particularly through their local councils is, in some parts of the state, people may not even know about the availability of pre K at no cost to them. And I wonder about that in places where we only have 11% of the children accessing, but we have 60 some odd percent availability of slots in that area. I don't I wouldn't have thoughts on that.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Yeah. That specific example. So I do think that Well, I mean, the school districts, again, they do have responsibility to do child find for three- and four year olds, specifically related to special education services. So many of them are using that as part of their tool to connect with those families. But yes, I think you're right. Some do more and less on their outreach to three and four year old families. But it is their responsibility to learn who those families are and figure out if those kids have some additional needs. I think that in Essex County, that 11% estimate came up, where the eleven percent estimate came up, that's an interesting one. So definitely part of the issue is the NEK Choice School District, where, again, they're estimating that they might have seven kids a year. So this is Essex County. And then they do have a public pre K in Canaan. And they've got a couple of Head Start programs that they're working to create more community based slots there and develop those partnerships. I would say, though, also something just to keep in mind is in Essex County, my understanding and again, nobody in the world can correct me if I'm wrong but I think there's a higher percentage of families that homeschool in Essex County. And they're going to homeschool throughout. So again, just like that local context will tell you that that number is going to be low. The uptake is going to be lower probably no matter what.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I agree. But I think it probably could be higher than 11%. Yes.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Agreed. Agreed. And that's where we are trying to

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I don't think it's gonna be done in county numbers. Let's put it that way. I mean, there's different cultures and different family dynamics, and those all should be respected in terms of what families' choices are. So not saying that. I'm just saying that I think that in places where the data is emerging and we're seeing these potential issues that I'm not sure we're going to be able to not sure what we would put in the bill, maybe about education of availability. I don't. But as you said, there's child finding responsibilities for school districts already at So that they know who's there. I don't know how much I personally don't know how much school districts inform people about the availability of what services there are for their children at that age.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: That's definitely something that Yeah, it's definitely the agency of education would be able to speak to more. And then I think because for the children that are connected to us through children's integrated services, those children who have already been identified before their third birthday, then there is a warm handoff. But it's for the children that haven't been caught, haven't been identified before then. The other thing I would offer that I think is relevant to this and relevant to part of the discussion you had yesterday is in the years before 01/1966 passed, in the first couple of years after 166 passed, there was a philanthropically funded entity called the Vermont Community Preschool Collaborative. And that was something funded by the anyway, permanent fund. It was all connected. And they specifically were about creating to do pre K planning. And it also provided grant money for the school districts related to the conversation you guys were having yesterday about when you just average the amount of money over two years, then you're short for a year, at least. And that was what their design was pre ACT 166. Vermont Community Preschools Collaborative Again with Philanthropic Dollar stepped in to try to fill that gap. That was one of the challenges that I think they were trying to fix with 01/1966 that allowed the funding to be built into the school budget without a similar limitation. And I do think, actually, the language that was in 01/1966 related to some of the community planning was hoping for this. But again, there wasn't the resources put against the hope for community planning in the bill, and obviously, it hasn't happened at the level that it was intended that the language indicates. First off, I

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: say you get kudos for picking up on all the various points.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Are. Remembering that, you know? And

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: representation might have something to say about this one. I'm

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: curious. I have a couple of questions, at least. Yeah. I can. Also, with respect to this two year averaging issue, and since that old framework is currently available, do you have thoughts on how we address them?

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: I think that would be a better question for the agency, because I think they know a lot more about what the plans all the permutations on the funding structure. So I don't have a great strategy. I just wanted to point out that this is not a new issue. And there are other people that could speak to it, again, their perspective from eight to ten years ago,

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I the but change was think that one of the things that was helpful yesterday from the testimony we received from First Children's Finance is that I think the increments are going to be more moderate than at least I was thinking originally, because I don't have it right up, but I'm trying to think if the lowest was like 67%, I can't remember. When I was thinking about the Northeast Kingdom, we all keep thinking about the Northeast Kingdom. I was thinking, I guess there's one down as low as 55%.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: No, actually.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: No, no, know. This what I'm saying. This provided data about the kids with access versus the kids utilizing it, which was the data we got from Building Bright Futures. So with the exception of Franklin County, where it's pretty low in terms of there's a lot more people in Franklin Grand Isle County than there is in Essex. And we do hear about the availability issue. But I guess what I'm saying is that the incremental progress isn't going to be a jump of going from access to where we see 86% access to it's not going to be a jump of 15 points or something like that because it's pretty high already. In the one place, which is Franklin Grand Isle region there, there could be that potential. But I think that hopefully we could figure out a way to build into the system to account for that potential. And I know that there's efforts for expansion in those areas. I don't know about the public school system expansion of the service in those areas, but I know on the private side that there's been some expansion in that area, at least in childcare.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Can I shift gears with

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: the- Yeah, what I'm thinking is it's not as big an issue as maybe we were thinking?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. So I I agree. Looking at that page three of what we've shared. Shifting gears a little bit, we've had conversations about trying to find a way to bring in greater sync the payment receipts in the public setting versus the private setting for a UPK student. And part of that conversation is whether it should be married with equalizing qualifications.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: And

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I'm wondering whether you have thoughts about that generally, and most specifically, the capacity for private providers to meet that?

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Yeah. So think it's definitely a valid question, right? Like equal resources, equal accountability. So And it's definitely a valid question. I think there is this is actually one of the work groups we have funded with some of the preschool development grant project money as well, having a partnership group between the AOE, their approvals or licensing team, and our team that works in workforce development to try to understand how to sync and leverage our efforts to support people that want to get to teacher licensure better. I will say broadly, I think there's lots of people. I don't know that our higher education system is churning out as many licensed teachers as we need, generally. It's not just specific to early childhood education, but it is particularly challenging in early childhood education. I think AOE has data that says that the highest percentage of people that they have on provisionals are people in the early childhood are people that need early childhood education or early childhood special education. So I think if we were to go down the road of equalizing qualifications, which does have a reasonable research and public policy background to it, we would need to make sure that there's an adequate transition time, that there's pathways for people across the sector to be able to earn their supported pathways for them to earn their licenses, that recognize that the settings are different and have different resources, that we would need a pathway to provisional licensure, a pathway and supports for provisional licensors in community based settings, not just in school based settings, which is something that we've had. It's kind of sunsetted right this second, that's part of our work, the hoped for project work within PDG is to figure out how would we bring that back.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, which I guess raises a question about this bill and the licensure bill, because what you're talking about is a lot of that is adjusted licensure and the timing of the two. The licensure bill, as it's gonna come to us from the senate has a very long timeline, you know, that can exist for someone to meet it. But I think if we're looking to sync up qualifications in this bill, it may abbreviate that timeline in a way that conflicts with what we're talking about in licensure.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Yeah, well, I don't look at those things as being necessarily one needing to be aligned because we're talking about two different types of staff. But that being said, I think we need longer than what we currently have in this draft for a ramp up time for the private providers to achieve having licensed staff in the pre K.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I totally understand the point about that it's different staff. I mean, there are ECE one, ECE two that we're probably not talking about in this context, but we'll be talking about the ECE threes. That's where I think the longest

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: We gotta

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: be excluding pre K. See, that bill is going forward without understanding what we're doing in pre K. So if we put forward a requirement that there needs to be licensed teachers with a AOE license in pre K, that will exclude them from that bill. Do you understand what I'm saying? Right now they're included because this wasn't envisioned, I guess, from that side.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Some of the questions I have in my mind about the licensure bill are addressed in part by that long ramp up period. So if we decouple them, would we have an equally long ramp up time in here? And I think we're trying to move faster with syncing these things in a private and public setting.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Yeah. Think I'm not sure that we're disagreeing, but I'm not sure that we're agreeing. I'm not sure either. We need to be cognizant of what that bill says, but we also need to be aware that we might change that or if the House might change it. And I don't know if we'll end up in a conference committee on that bill or not. Yeah, we absolutely need to be aware of what we're doing in both. And I'm just saying, I don't think they need to be the same.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I agree with you that we want to move faster on this. I'm not sure if you said that, but I agree

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: that I understand you would like to move faster on this.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I'd say I'm not as fast as what it says right now. Yeah.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: Or are I mean, I think we all want to I'm assuming we want to see those rates kind of equalize. And can that happen faster than, I think, also the ramp up needs to be longer.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: The intention to To be at the second.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Yeah. So there will be resistance to that because people will say that we're paying

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: you more. You need to have the

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: same qualifications.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Should have

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: the same qualifications. Same requirements. I feel like I can make an argument that we're going to need to invest and that's what private providers will need to invest in their staff to, in addition to whatever we have through professional development in order to make that happen. So I feel like we can make an argument to support that.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I under I understand. We'll get that that argument, but the payment may may be the same. Salaries are not the same. Salaries aren't the same, and I'm not sure they'll ever be the same between private settings.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: And benefits certainly are not the same.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Benefits are certainly not the same. So I think we have to factor that into the consideration of how quickly or strongly or what degree we wanna move towards over equalizing that. I mean, I think we should look at results, and I'm trying to find there's some data, but it doesn't seem what data is out there about the results we're getting from private versus public setting. There's some information in the ready for kindergarten survey. But there's also a caveat in there. It's broken out kind of in a funny way of attended publicly funded pre k, did not attend publicly funded pre k. Not sure that really are the two groups you're looking at because publicly funded pre K Yeah. So getting to the results is probably the most important thing about whether the reimbursement or the payment should be the same.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: It's one of the factors. I'm not gonna say it's the most important thing. I think we also need to think about political realities in the building. And as I said yesterday, one of the political realities is the argument that there isn't any I'm just gonna put it this way. There's no way we're gonna be able to provide more resources in the private pre K if we do not increase the staff qualifications, period, the end. I'm just saying that that's a fact. It's not a supposition. It's what the reality is. And so what we're talking about is really what the timeline for that occurring is and whether or not private pre K can in advance of that be paid at that rate in order to support those staff to move to that.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Or I don't know if we're the concern I voiced yesterday about whether we don't wanna do harm to the workforce and the availability and access issue. Can we have two levels of payment? Whether you meet the current UBK requirements, you get payment at this level. And if you meet the new requirements, may be putting in place then you'd be on par with the public school.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I'm not going to say I'm close to that idea, because I thought it was an interesting idea. I guess all the arguments around us, both in the ECE bill and what we hear about professional development. And there's plenty of information out there that talks about the professional qualifications, that results increase as the professional qualifications of those teaching To staff me, that'd be saying we have different expectations for achievement for some of those students than we do for others of those students.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I'm trying to balance that. I don't disagree. I'm not arguing with

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I know you're trying to be pragmatic about it.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Trying to

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: be pragmatic and ensure that's get it. Because we've talked a lot about access. I think Deputy Commissioner, you were gonna chime in.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I have a

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: couple of things I can say.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Know. We're kinda just, know, I'm listening. Thank you.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Okay. Will say, I mean, I think, again, another pretty small funded project is doing a more in-depth workforce analysis. So the workforce analysis that came out recently was produced with internal staff resources. But we are going to be hiring a vendor to support us, with the research question being what would it take for Vermont to have every classroom being led by a qualified educator? Recognizing that the definition of qualified might vary based on whether that's a pre K classroom or not one operating at those standards. So we're trying to get at what those numbers are. The other and have a sense of what that gap is. And again, we'll have more information hopefully by December on that. I think the data that we have right now does not show a difference in terms of student outcomes and public school based pre K versus community based pre K. It does show a difference relative to participating in publicly funded pre K in either setting versus not attending at all. But it doesn't show that difference. But you also can't make a lot again, as we've talked about, data collection and analysis capacity has been more limited than ideal. And so you can't make a lot of assumptions on some of those pieces. So for example, for family child care homes, think that the answer is most. I think most is the accurate word. But family child care homes that offer universal pre kindergarten, that family child care educator is the licensed teacher. They're not contracted licensed teachers. So in fact, in those settings, those children might be getting forty hours a week with a licensed teacher, which is not all counted as pre K. So you might see amazing results from them. And then you might have another family child care home where they are contracting with a mentor teacher for that three hours a week, which is what the minimum is required in the rule. So that's of digging into the data a little bit more is to look at what those qualifications are. And so again, in centers, same thing. Some centers do have their pre K hours being led by a licensed teacher already. And some just have somebody that is in the building during pre K hours, which is what the minimum requirement is. And so right now, we're not collecting data in such a way that necessarily allows us to make those gradations of who's actually in a classroom that is being led by a licensed teacher right now and who isn't. That's, again, part of the work that we want to do together is to figure out how are we collecting that on consistent basis. And I don't think it seems impossible, because we do collect it's not impossible. Between the data that AOE collects and CDD collects, we should be able to put it together and analyze it and figure out what the plan is to fill in the gaps on a reasonable time you know what I mean? On not a five year timeline, on a one year timeline. Sort of your instinct, I guess, that there might already be people that are meeting that standard already. And should we be thinking about those folks versus the folks that are still in a transitional phase? That is an interesting question.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'd ask a really direct question. So if we were to change the qualification requirements, in your opinion, and I know this is not based on data, because data is coming, in your opinion, would that have a dire negative impact on the private setting?

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Without any warning? Yeah, we're

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: not talking about doing

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: it On the workers' answer on children's access to pre kindergarten education? I think both, because I don't

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: yeah, they're kind of intersecting. Is it because if the private setting, private operators can't get enough qualified staff, then they're going to reduce or close or not be UPK?

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Yeah, I mean, that's something that we need to look in to right now, because we do see that the data right now is showing that there's fewer community based pre K programs than there were in the past. And I think that's a question. Again, it's not falling off a cliff by any stretch. But it is kind of steadily declining over the last couple of years. And so I think it's, again, it's like interrogating that a little bit more to try to understand is that because those programs I mean, I'm aware of some, where the issue was that they weren't unable to keep the licensed teacher or find a licensed teacher. So that has definitely happened. Again, is that happening five centers versus I don't know. What's the line at which

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: you would say is an emergency? Just part of the reason that I think we have about making whatever comes in the categorical grant to be the same. So that

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: they can

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: pay more. So they can pay more. And some teachers make decisions to work in a private setting because they like that setting and vice versa. But obviously, people make personal decisions. So I think we're kind of going around and around about this a little bit. I don't want to take up more of Janet's time on this particular issue. I'm going to look to many members to see if there are other things in the bill that people want to ask for any clarification from Janet on in terms of her thoughts, opinions, or experience or advice.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: What we do?

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Tie it to the bigger picture.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: We heard that message. So we're trying to set a baseline. We're trying not to be upset, not to upset the apple cart too much, really are trying to increase access and increase payments to providers. And staff qualification thing gets all linked in with that for me, but maybe not for others. But I think we need to think about political realities as well. And I don't know what version of this will ultimately end up in the summer lights, but other questions around any other items? And if do we have our next witness on yet? No? Okay. So I'm curious if Janet had any other thoughts that we had not talked about yet on the draft that you looked at. And we could tell you whether they've changed

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: or not. Yeah, you're right. Okay, did have sorry. Yes. The version I have my notes on right is here tonight. No, I think the things that are related to the rate setting and adjustments and even related to central early education, that's really the agency's expertise. Would I used So to use education, not my

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: agency's. But

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: I can see that there has been some confusion related to essential early childhood education and pre kindergarten education in the past. So perhaps it is worthwhile to think about how to clean that up. Welcome, speaking of

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: the Hey, perfect. It's Pat. Come on in. Okay, great. Okay, thank

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: you guys.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Thank you so much for coming back. Really, really Okay, folks, now we are moving on to our next witnesses and thanks so much for being here. We appreciate it. There's a new version of the bill that popped up today. Have no idea if you've had a chance to look at it or not, but we welcome to have the secretary and Erin here. Welcome. Feel free to have, you want to pull up a chair, if you want to have you both there, that's fine. Welcome to the House Human Services Committee. This is your first time here this year.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: This is my first time. Yes, this year it is.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Yeah. So I think we'll just do a brief round of introductions, just so you know where we're all from and everything. So I'm Theresa Wood. I'm from Waterbury, I also serve Bolton, Buleskore, and Huntington. Anne Donahue from Northfield, also Berlin.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Good morning. I'm Dan Noyes. I represent Wilkett, Hyde Park, Johnson, and Belvedere.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Brenda Steady, East Milton, Westford.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Doug Bishop, Colchester, Chittenden, 28 District. Good morning. My name is Zon Eastes. I live in Guildford, and I also serve in Vernon. Oh,

[Esme Cole (Member)]: I'm Esme Cole, I'm part three of the team.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'm Anne B. Garofano, Essex And Essex Downsfield.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Marie Forrest, main assistant.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Right around the room.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: My name is Deborah Regan. I work for the Newcrossing group.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'm Sam at Action Circles. Mad eleven, early childhood advocacy work. Jolene Brachette, strategies.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: So

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: welcome, the floor is yours. We have lots of questions, but this wanted you to be able to if you have any comments that you wanna make first, that's great. And I know it's one thing I'll let you know is that we've gotten a little bit of reprieve on time. I thought I was going to have to have this fill out tomorrow, but we can have till middle of next week. So that's going to give hopefully us an opportunity to maybe send language back and forth and get feedback and stuff with AOE and AHS as we try to lay some groundwork, I guess, on pre K. So welcome.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: Thank you so much. Good morning. Thank you for having us. For the record, I'm Zoe Saunders. I'm the Secretary of Education. I'm delighted to join you today. And I'm also accompanied by our Chief Academic Officer, Doctor. Erin Davis. I'll allow her to introduce herself while I request access to Zoom.

[Erin Davis (Chief Academic Officer, Vermont AOE)]: I'm Erin Davis. I graduated from South Burlington, Paces School.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: Yes.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Ready.

[Erin Davis (Chief Academic Officer, Vermont AOE)]: Hopefully that didn't give you the wrong first impression. We haven't. We

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: didn't invite you here for your technical expert.

[Erin Davis (Chief Academic Officer, Vermont AOE)]: Any of that. Yeah, so I moved back to the state about four years ago. I have a five year old, so anything that we get to do with pre K is near and dear to my heart. And yeah, very glad to be back in the state. And I joined the AOD about eight months. I'm coming up on eight months now. So I know enough to be dangerous.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: That's great.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: And Erin's position, Doctor. Davis's position, was created through reorganization, and we identified a need for the agency to establish stronger leadership around academics, and so created this new position as a Chief Academic Officer, which serves on my executive cabinet and also within the reorganization, shifted some of the critical functions of our agency to ensure that there's more strategic alignment of the pre K-twelve system related to curriculum. So we actually created a new division focused on curriculum and instruction. Our special education team has been elevated along with some of the key roles around pre K being elevated as well through the reorganization. So the changes that we've made at the Agency of Education are very reflective of what we have identified are the needs of the state in areas where the agency can provide stronger, more targeted support. So we're really delighted to have Doctor. Davis on our team, and we have been placing a lot of emphasis on early childhood education. So I will share my screen to provide a little bit of context. Some of this I will breeze through quickly because I know that my colleagues in Building Bright Futures and also CDD have provided a lot of context. Just for your understanding, we work really closely. We have a lot of shared meetings and collaboration. And so while it is our first time from the Agency of Education being in your committee, we do coordinate very closely on all testimony so that there's alignment around our work. So what I've prepared today is to share with you briefly a vision for expanding access to pre kindergarten, building around the success that Vermont has had. I'll highlight the current state, although I believe that everyone in this committee is very familiar with the current state, and then move into what we have identified are the major policy objectives for education transformation. We have put together some feedback on the bill, although I appreciate learning that you have made some adjustments. I expect that there'll be fuller conversation as we engage with you more today. And then we're highlighting some of the recommended next steps. Some of this might be repetitive from what you've already heard from my colleagues and sister agencies around how we are advancing this work. So the vision that we take for pre K is really situating this within a critical key career continuum. So we see universal pre K as a critical entry point into Vermont's education system. We know the importance of supporting early childhood education for the benefits that it provides to students and their readiness for kindergarten, but also in supporting family stability as well. And we see pre K as part of the broader education transformation efforts. So the current state, as you have learned and are really well versed in, we have a strong foundation. Although we are operating within a very complex system, that's true of pre K alone, but it's also true of how pre K is situated within a very complex K-twelve system. So in terms of service delivery, just as reminders, we do deliver pre K through a mixed delivery system. So that includes public schools and our community providers currently serving three, four, and five year olds, those five year olds who are not yet in kindergarten. As you know, the minimum of ten hours per week, thirty five weeks a year. We share your interest in expanding that for four year olds. So looking forward to that conversation today. And we do have high participation rates. So Vermont is really outstanding in terms of access for both three year olds and four year olds when we compare ourselves to other states. In terms of system design, pre K is jointly administered by AOE and CBD. We are actively working together, as I know you have learned, to streamline compliance and strengthen our shared oversight. Part of the complexity of pre K is that there are often different compliance requirements for the childhood licensure and then also pre K. And so we are really being intentional about evaluating that so that we can have a more streamlined oversight that benefits the field as well and making sure there's some strong coherence. Right now, K is funded by the resident school districts. Children enrolled in public school or those approved community based pre K programs are included in the school district's ADM, but at that not at full ADM. So we'll talk a little bit about that as we think about funding considerations. The school districts are responsible for paying the community based providers. There is a discrepancy based on the tuition rate, as you know, that goes to the community based programs and then what's funded at the public school setting, so an area that we believe is immediately focused. So while we want to recognize that we outperformed the country in pre K access and outcomes, I do think it's important to just pause on that because I know in my work, I'm always focused on continuous improvement and what can we do better? And I really appreciate and respect that this committee is also operating in that space. But it is important to pause and to recognize that we really have done an excellent job of expanding access to pre K and that we really outperformed other states across the country. So definitely something to celebrate and be proud of. However, we do recognize some improvement areas. And largely, those improvement areas are to overcome some of the complexity of our current system. So we recognize that right now, we have a very fragmented governance system. In some cases, are limited hours for families. Families only need additional time in order for them to partake in the pre pay offerings. The funding is not fully aligned yet with our broader system in terms of ensuring that there's consistency and transparency around how we fund pre K education. And then we see variation in access. And I know that my colleagues have shared with you the map that we've all reviewed. It is important for us to understand where there are pre K deserts and to work towards improving access in those areas. I know that's a focus for this committee, and we share that. So as we think about policy development, just want to provide a little bit of context around how we're coming to this conversation. So Governor Scott's original transformation proposal did put forward a cradle to career approach and really ensuring that we have a seamless educational delivery from pre K all the way through high school. We want to make sure pre K is not separate because we do see it as the first stage of the education system. And we want to ensure that those pre K expectations are aligned with the expectations in kindergarten through twelfth grade and that there is alignment in terms of the support and outcomes, so that we really are establishing a very high quality education system. And we're seeing that those transition years, students are successful. So one of the areas that I'll note to you, we regularly are engaged in a monitoring visit from the US Department of Education. So we had our visit back in 2024. And one of the things were noted for us as a finding is we need to do a better job of supporting those critical transition points. And so that is true of pre K to kindergarten, along with when you think about fifth to sixth grade, and then eighth grade to ninth grade. So we're being really intentional around thinking through those transition points and understanding that we have that continuity. And so I bring that to bear in this conversation because from an academic and education lens, that's really important to us. So we are in the proposal that was put forward back in January 2025, seems such a long time ago. We really were clear that the proposal was designed to expand access and to create that coherent system. So a little bit more detail. The governor's original proposal did emphasize expanding access to pre kindergarten through the proposed evidence based foundation formula. So within that approach, it was built into the new funding system, and also recognizing that we need to achieve scale and quality through larger districts. H-four 54, as it was originally introduced in the House, specified new weights for pre kindergarten, particularly for the four year olds to be able to benefit from a full ADM. And there was modeling at the time as well that included pre kindergarten at that adjusted weight within the proposed funding for the overall. So we really saw this as pre K as part of the overall funding system. H-four 54, as passed by the House, shifted the funding formula, so moved from what was originally proposed, which was an evidence based model, to a cost factor analysis model. And in that transition, requested a study for pre kindergarten because there wasn't as much clarity at the time within the new methodology how pre K would be factored in, in terms of the base amount and the weight. So Act 73, a sign into law that I know everyone here has studied very deeply, does require an examination of our funding system to propose the final foundation formula. And it includes specific intent language for the establishment of a prekindergarten weight. So this is lifted directly from Act 73 in terms of the charge for the study to establish an appropriate weight for pre kindergarten students, as well as enact changes to the publicly funded pre kindergarten program that ensure costs are borne by the appropriate funding source depending on the age of the student and the pre kindergarten education provider. So the result of this is that the Joint Fiscal Office will provide a report and a recommendation by December 2026 that will include pre K. So our policy development priorities at this juncture is to ensure there's that Pre K-twelve alignment so that Pre K is really part of the larger continuum of the Cradle to Career system. The governor really supported the Pre Kindergarten Education Implementation Committee's recommendation. And that recommendation was to expand hours for four year olds and maintain access for three year olds. I understand that continues to be part of the conversation you all are engaged in. Also We

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: plan to maintain the access for three year olds.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: Okay, sounds great when we're already aligned. So great. So we're all there. Now it's the mechanics of how we make it work great and fund it. So great. Good to know that we're there as a starting point. In terms of funding integration, it is really important to understand our governance as it relates to funding. And we'll talk a little bit more about how we see larger districts being supportive of pre K and ensuring that there's that tighter coordination. I believe your committee has had some conversations around, should we require a pre K coordinator at that central office level? When we did all of our modeling with the funding, we did include a pre K coordinator for that particular reason. And we were really attuned to evaluating if the funding system would support that. And we do know that achieving scale is important. So again, operating at scale is really important to us so that we ensure that consistency across districts and providers. There's a tremendous amount of complexity, as I know you've probably heard of, from our community based providers and our schools around just how attendance is reported, for example, can be really challenging. In terms of oversight priorities, I've mentioned this, but we are working really closely to clarify those roles around for AOE, CDB, districts and providers. Because of the complexity of our system, sometimes there is role confusion And we are really being intentional as we're moving through this transformation of identifying those roles and responsibilities. And then for the funding system, we have to make sure that funding is situated where the responsibilities lie. So ultimately, that's an important input. And then ultimately, we want to make sure that this is predictable, equitable, and sustainable. So feedback, now I want to acknowledge that I have not had a chance to see your revisions. I do appreciate and value that you've landed on maintaining three year olds. That was something that was important to us. So look forward to seeing that. Our original recommendation was not to move forward with the proposal as it was written. So very interested in having that conversation today. Our main concern is that it's disconnected from the broader education transformation work. There are still outstanding decisions that the legislature will need to make around the governance design and the overall funding. And we also recognize that Act 73 lays out a process for updating the foundation formula to reflect statewide priorities, and that explicitly includes creating a dedicated wait for pre pay. So the Foundation Formula Study provides an opportunity to answer the same four questions this bill seeks to address, and doing so in alignment with the broader education transformation work. The question I would put forward in our discussion today is if the committee recommends additional inputs or objectives be considered in that study. I think that's an important part of the conversation. And so our key principle is that the policy changes to pre K must be fully aligned with a larger transformation effort to ensure coherence and sustainability. And so our recommended next steps, which I believe you've learned a lot about, we are very much focused on system alignment, and we do have a grant to support our efforts in this area. I believe you've walked through this, so I can come back to it if you have any specific questions around how we are approaching this work. But I also want to note in this, and Doctor. Davis can expand, in addition to looking at some of the operational oversight, we're very much focused on quality and ensuring that alignment as we are evaluating the academic readiness of students transitioning from pre K into kindergarten. So it's really critical transition years. And then we have noted some additional considerations that have been shared with you, just bear repeating in terms of how we're approaching this work in concert with our partners. So with that, I will stop sharing and look, I'm really eager to hear some of the highlights of what you have identified or some of the revisions to the proposal of the bill. Great. That would be helpful.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Yeah, sorry, she took Ledge Council's chair. You sure? I'm happy. Are you sure?

[Erin Davis (Chief Academic Officer, Vermont AOE)]: Okay, all right. Just wanna make sure.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Thank you. And as you went through your presentation, I think you'll find sort of the thought process that we've been going through is very much aligned with the things that you have identified. And sort of top on our list is ensuring that every three and four year old who wants to have access has access. And we've identified some parts of the state that necessarily long deserts, but there might be an oasis way off in the distance. And so that's one of the things. Another thing that we are looking at, and so we have landed on three year olds. I think that there is, from all of the reports that we've heard, people would like to, the pre K implementation study that we asked for with Act 76, really same recommendations that you're putting out there in terms of both the governance and clarification of roles, as well as the expansion for four year olds and maintaining three year olds. And I think one of the things that we understand that is critical about that is that easier access and identification of special education needs and provision of those services. So I think we're very aligned on those areas. The part that we're one of the things that Act 166 did not I hate that it calls it universal pre K because it's not universal. It's universal that you can get ten hours if you can find ten hours if you know about it. A lot of ifs. So we're trying to remediate some of those ifs. And so another one of the areas in addition to access is identifying a locus of responsibility that is not identified in Act 166 in current statutes. Another is addressing the staff qualifications of pre K. And we're having lots of debate about that in the committee. And equalizing the payment rate for private and public pre K. And not doing anything that's going to unintentionally reduce access or reduce quality or upset the, we feel proud of the work that we've done together to increase access and to really work on early childhood education and see that those results are paying off. And only want to continue to improve that. We don't want to see us slide back on those areas. And so we're very cognizant of not wanting to make premature changes, but wanting to set the stage for the policy that we hope will emerge whenever the final version of education transformation is agreed to and voted on and funded. So I think that we have some similar ideas about what the goals are. I think you really do have a lot of alignment there. I'm interested in, this is something that I'm gonna ask for some feedback and others will too around some of the specifics that we're thinking about. But one of the things that really struck me as you were talking, and I've heard you speak about this before, and I'm grateful about it, and that's the really integration of pre K into the full system of education. And I've been to quite a few public meetings on education in the last couple of years. And I often hear teachers at the upper grade levels, I should say, not valuing pre K and talking about it as an unfunded mandate, talking about it as babysitting, talking about it really not in the terms which we all are talking about it right now. And so before we get into kind of the specifics about what we'd like to see in terms of transformation, I'm interested in how the agency of education works with school districts to I'm trying to figure out a way. And I'm not sure that we can do it. I think it's something that school districts need to do and AOE needs to help with how we change that dynamic in the places it exists. I'm not saying it exists everywhere, but I was kind of like, my jaw dropped a little bit, to be perfectly honest. The staff weren't as valued and what they were doing was not as valued. And that was troublesome to me and clearly not understanding the extreme value of early education. And I'm just wondering what your thoughts are about that, either one of you.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: I'll start and then I'll let you expand. As you noted, it may be variable across the state in terms of really understanding and supporting it. And I think you've also noted that some of that comes into a conversation around funding. And so what we're talking about is ensuring that we have clarity around our quality education objectives and that we're resourcing our education system to deliver that. Because we often hear about the conflict, the competition for funding, that is true within the pre K space, it's also true for career and technical education, and as you think about innovative programs that we want all students to have access to. So some of those considerations, I think, do go back to our inequity currently with funding and our lack of scale to contribute. In terms of the work we're doing around education transformation, I think we have to acknowledge that it does represent a paradigm shift. And at the agency, we're also being clear about our goals. So we're engaged in a very robust strategic planning process right now. We haven't had a strategic plan for a long time at the agency, and we know that that's needed to ensure we have student centered goals that are our North Star. And we have established five strategic pillars of how we're setting goals. And one of those is related to kindergarten readiness. So when we think about kindergarten readiness, it's important for us to understand how is kindergarten readiness also translating to third grade proficiency in English language arts and mathematics. And so where we have a disconnect, we really need to be evaluating both the preparation in the pre K space, along with ensuring that there is that continuity of quality programming in kindergarten and third grade. So our efforts in this space are establishing very clear goals related to kindergarten readiness. We're talking a lot about ensuring that students are ready for important transitions, and that includes pre K to kindergarten, and then supporting their kindergarten to third grade development. So that is absolutely a driver of the work that we are doing at the agency. It starts with setting really clear expectations and goals, and then aligning the system. When I say system, I aligning the work of the agency of education to the work that's happening at the districts, to the work that's happening at the schools, the way down the community providers. And so that's the work that we are engaged in right now. And I think it's really exciting work. I have found that there is a real understanding of the importance of pre K, but funding often is a conversation where that's a thing that gets cut, right? And we're seeing that across our system that because of the way that we're funding, many of the programs that we value and want our students to have access to, including pre K, are often the areas where we have cuts. And that's why we find education transformation so important, because that's our opportunity as a state to be really clear around what we value. And then the way that we fund our system should be at an appropriate level of resources so that students can really access that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Well, we've heard examples of where like Pre K coordinators are being cut or Pre K is being eliminated or Pre K is being cut. And it of, it sort troubles me and it sort of, I guess lends credence to my comment earlier because you wouldn't say, Oh, we're not gonna provide second grade anymore. We're cutting out second grade because we can't afford it. But pre K is seen as an extra thing. It's not seen as an integrated component of the system. And part of that comes into play because school districts aren't assigned responsibility for it. Nobody is other than the state paying for it. And that's one of the things that we really feel strongly about changing and are interested in your feedback about that. I didn't-

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: And I'll let you entertain that too. And I think you're right. It needs to be considered as part of an integrated system. We're seeing, yes, cuts in pre K, we're seeing cuts in other critical areas that we think is really important to providing a well rounded education. It really just affirms the need for us to make some of these fundamental shifts to how we are investing our significant amount of dollars in education so they're going further and achieving these goals we have for our system. In terms of locus of control, and you had mentioned that being an area of inquiry, agree that needs to be a real focus. We have to have clarity around the responsibility. And you'll often hear me say that where the responsibility lies, the funding should also align. And also, there needs to be the appropriate scale. So in the conversations around districts being the responsible party, they would need to be operating at a certain scale to be able to effectively manage the funding, manage the quality, and also have the level of staff resources to provide the site visits and the support to the community providers. So the question around locus of control to me is also tightly connected to how we fund that responsible party. There should be some additional, what I would call, kind of administrative oversight that would be needed because they are providing the resources and they're responsible for providing the resources. And then you have to be operating at scale. So for larger districts, when we did our initial modeling, we included pre K coordinators and a pre K team at the district to be able to resource that. If you have smaller districts, it's going to be really challenging to do that. So any conversation around responsibility needs to think about scale. And that's why we feel it's so connected to the education transformation work, whether that be that the district's responsible or a regional entity or the agency, I think there needs to be clarity around that. And with that clarity comes, what are you actually asking for that responsible party to deliver? What are they owning? And then when you think about what they're owning, they have to have the staff and the resources to fully own that. And that should be contemplated as part of the funding system. And the way that we have approached the funding is that there's parity in funding. So if we know what it costs to operate a high quality pre K program, that's how much it needs to be funded regardless of setting, with the understanding that there may be some additional administrative support depending on who that responsible party is, and that should be factored into the funding model.

[Erin Davis (Chief Academic Officer, Vermont AOE)]: No, can I build on some of the things that we've been talking about? So I first want to start by saying budget decisions are a reflection of values. And so when school districts are in the position that many of them find themselves right now where funds are very tight, they're having to make very difficult decisions and doing their best to remain aligned to their values. I would caution us around inferring that the decision to cut back on pre K hours itself within the public school setting or pre K services indicates that they don't value it because folks in school districts understand that we have a mixed delivery model here in the state. And also, you're not going to cut second grade because you're trimming around the edges. And so pre K is the beginning of when they enter our system, it is an edge. I agree. We should be investing in it. We need to figure out how to fund it. But I just want to caution us about indicating that it's reflecting and undervaluing by our public schools of pre K because I would first make the assumption before going there that it's an indication of just how difficult the decisions that they're having to make right now are. And then as far as ways we're trying to address overall that shift in paradigm that the secretary referred to, there's a couple of strategies that we're using here at the AOE in addition to situating pre K within our newly created academics area, which like she said, is a result of that listen and learn tour. We've elevated it. It previously was a team that was kind of buried within other divisions. It now reports directly to me as the chief. And so I'm able to stay in the loop with it and it reflects the importance of the work and the conversations that are happening right now around pre K. That sends Thank you for that. To the field of course

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: it as hasn't gone unnoticed that that has happened under your leadership, because I think that was one of the things all through Act 76 discussions and stuff. In the governance study, there was even went so far as to say there should be a whole separate department that took from both places and created it. And in the absence of that, we said, let's see what we can do to elevate it. And so I appreciate the fact that that's done and that it is such an integrated part of the conversation that is happening right now. And I'll say, I think we sometimes struggle within this body to get the acceptance of pre K, particularly in a mixed delivery system, the importance that it merits. So it's not only out in the community where maybe there's some mixed feelings about it. I think that there is in this building as well. And so, I wasn't meaning to imply any intent, but just that there's I understand people are faced with realities. And so anyways, I just wanted to express appreciation for the elevation of that and the continued focus on the importance of pre K. And what we have I know I've had some personal conversations saying that we're doing so well in readiness for kindergarten. We still got places where we can improve, but we're doing so well in that. And so then what happens between there and third grade and then in middle school? I know that those are all things that you're looking at. If children start out with special needs and they're still getting ready for kindergarten, what do we need to adapt in order for them to be able to continue to be ready to learn and achieve? So appreciate that. I didn't mean to cut you off. Sorry.

[Erin Davis (Chief Academic Officer, Vermont AOE)]: And both things can be true, right? That we need to continue to elevate with everyone the importance of pre K and early childhood education and that schools are in very difficult positions right now with their budgets. The other two things that I would point to quickly, we've already touched on a little bit, which has to do with the transitions. You're right. We have a lot to celebrate as far as kinder readiness and there's more room to grow. The evaluation strategy for kindergarten readiness relies heavily on teachers doing kind of self reported assessments of a student's readiness. It's not like we're going to put a four year old in front of a computer to take a standardized test, of course. Sometimes there's a disparity with what the kindergarten teachers then are seeing when they enter the classroom. So I do think that there's, of course, opportunities for us to strengthen and align further on the ways that we connect the expectations of kindergarten readiness, both from those who are providing pre K services, whatever the setting and the kindergarten setting in our schools. I'm excited next week is actually the kindergarten conference here in Vermont. And so we have an opportunity to bring in some UPK folks to that. And that's one way that we're trying to bring folks to the same table more frequently. And then lastly, the thing that I would quickly touch upon that's part of Act 73, of course, is the statewide graduation requirements, which may sound like that's very far away from the pre K experiences. But from the beginning, as an agency, we were charged with making recommendations about those graduation requirements to the state board as they make their decision about them for the state. But we have positioned this as a decision with implications on the full pre K through 12 system, because whatever we decide is the final finish line for all of our students as they exit our pre K through 12 system, we then need to pull that thread all the way down to their earliest experiences educationally and make sure that there's strong alignment, vertical alignment the whole way through so that they can be successful in satisfying those graduation requirements. And that's been helpful as we continue to have conversations with folks at all levels of the system and thinking about knowing that many of our students enter high school with significant learning gaps right now. And so what does that mean needs to be

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: happening as early as pre K. And I'll add another lever that we have, which we are exploring, is looking at the personalized learning plan and thinking about that extending to kindergarten, potentially even pre K. So we're working with several SUs and SDs across the state to think intentionally about that and learn from systems that are doing that well. So we're really excited and eager to have a pilot on how we extend the value add for personalized learning plans at a much younger age and creating agency over their learning, clarity around goal setting for their academic journey, we believe that will also be helpful in supporting their transition from one grade to the next.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So if we could open up for questions now from committee members. And yeah, I do a lot of talking, so I'm going be quiet for a minute, and I know there are other people who have questions, so if they don't bite off, I

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: have plenty of my own.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: Hopefully we'll have the answers.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So I'm curious about the qualifications. If we are going to change the funding so the private and the public are getting the same amount of funding

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: to the qualifications. So a licensed teacher has to be in the classroom. What impacts do you think that will have on the system? I think you're rightly pointing to a funding question when we're talking about that transition, and then also having a ramp for that to work. So we've all explored that as an opportunity to think about how we can have the consistency across settings in terms of those expectations. But we also have to acknowledge the present operational challenges to get there. And it includes both funding and ensuring that there's the appropriate pathway to licensure.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So one of the things that I feel like has been inferred, but I want to ask the question deliberately. So does AOE support the continuation of a mixed delivery system? Yes. I just wanted to be clear about it because we hear all sorts of things in the building. Yes,

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: we support a mixed delivery system. We think it's important in terms of achieving our goals of universal access to pre K. And also we support shared accountability. So part of the work is really evaluating quality across systems and across the state. And we think that's really important as well. Our efforts as we're going through our planning and coordination with CBP is to really think about how we can provide that clarity of focus and oversight and support so that there is that shared accountability across settings and systems.

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I have another question. So you brought up several times the concept of the UPK coordinators, and I appreciate that that was included in the initial proposal under the new Envision governance system. So I'm curious if you have any thoughts about this is kind of thinking out loud a little bit, but knowing that we're not there with the governance yet, right? Like that's with the whole system with Act 73 governance structure. Is there a way to bridge that gap to create some kind of system of a regional coordination until we get to a place where we have a very set new governance system where we can say, you're getting this funding with fewer school districts, we can assign that responsibility in the new governance structure. Do you have any thoughts of how do we bridge that gap between now and when the new system is implemented? I'd

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: have to contemplate that further and come back to the committee. We have engaged in some of these conversations related to career and technical education, but that builds on three years of study and evaluation of where we're headed and how to organize that and was consistent largely with what the governor put forward last session. So related to pre K, my initial questions keep going back to the roles and responsibilities and how do we fund that. We have some challenges as we're thinking about funding our system. So that's part of our urgency in delivering on the goals of Act 73, so that we can get into a spot where we're able to align the resources to fund the priorities and values of our education system. So I would have to think on that and understand how that would fit into the way that we're modeling cost right now, and also what that would look like for the change management approach, as we're moving into It's a multi year effort to get to these larger districts. And so we are, I'll just signal that pre K would be part, is part of the work we're doing as we're thinking about that transition. And the agency has a role to play in that of really readying the system for this transition. So we're hiring roles or requesting that you make those permanent. So I'll do a plug for that. But those are the roles that are really in the ground to think through the complexity of what does look like when we're moving into new systems? How do we start to or new districts? How do we start to align our systems, our processes, align curriculum if there's some variation school by school, district by district? And so I would say to answer your question more succinctly, need to look into it, but I can assure that pre K is part of our change management approach and that we need to think about any funding changes and those implications. One the things that we are contemplating is actually a change in the funding structure and moving to take it out of the

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: weighted count. And we're actually trying to simplify it. I'm not sure if it's gonna achieve that objective, but we are trying to simplify it and to simplify

[Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: the

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: expectation that we would or to be able to effectuate the expectation that we would have the public school system and the private providers paid at the same rate. And of course, that all changes with taxing capacity and all of those other things. So we're talking about categorical aid and thinking about that. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are about that. And I recognize you haven't seen any language or anything like that about it, but just sort of the concept of shifting out of the daily membership and into a categorical aid like we do for some of the other services right now?

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: So our position on funding is that all decisions need to account for the full cost of the system. And so when the governor put forward the initial proposal, it was all in spending, understanding that there are currently categorical grants, understanding also that we were adding a weight for pre K, and we came in with a proposal that was $200,000,000 less than current spending. Because we made strategic choices and policy decisions around how we were going to invest those dollars. Act 73 ended at current spend, so increasing those investments, which made sense also because we recognize that this is a big shift. So the government is willing to compromise on that, knowing that this is a really big shift in how we're organizing our system and that there are some kind of costs to that. But one of the things I would caution against is adding additional categorical aid on top of an already really high cost system. So all of the work that we've done with JFO is really modeling inclusive of all the funding, all in resources that are needed for our system, and that would continue to be our position, so that we're not in a scenario where we have a foundation formula that represents highest base amount in the country, on top of the highest weights in the country, then on top of additional categorical grants on top of And so that's the concern is that there can be different mechanisms by which we pull those resources into pre K, but we have to make sure that we are situating that with an understanding of the total cost of our system and still making the choices that need to be made to honor our values and our goals. Yeah,

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I think we have similar thoughts on that. I don't believe we are. We haven't had that committee discussion, I don't believe we're trying to increase the cost of education. It's more about how it makes its way to the providers.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: That's right. That money has to come from somewhere. And so I think that's the piece that we would caution against as we just talk through shifting to categorical, make our position, we make sure that that is understood within the proposal the JFO will put forward for the overall funding. Right, and I just wrote that

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: down. Appreciate that. Representative Bishop.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So community has been discussing and had conversations with witnesses as well about trying to get greater parity in the payment received in whether it's private setting or a public setting. And part of that conversation has been what can we do to try to equalize the quality of the educators in those Right. Equalize that. I've expressed some, I think, what I view, sort of practical concerns about whether we're going to do any harm to access, because I'm not sure if the private settings are ready or how long it would take them to get ready or can they get there. Top my head, threw out the idea. Can we have sort of two levels of payment for a private setting, those that are meeting the current UPK requirements and the higher level, maybe on par with the public setting for those who are meeting if we you know, the public schools who are generally public housing, I think, have licensed educators.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: I'd have to think on that. I would say my initial response is that even within the K-twelve system, even though public schools are licensed teachers, are going to be waivers and exceptions for that, just because of the ability to hire and recruit. And then there are also costs that are incurred by the system to support the professional development of those teachers that are pursuing licensure support. And so I would worry that could potentially create a disincentive for those to attain licensure potentially and get the professional development and learning that they may need. I do support the transparency and simplicity around the funding, right? Like we have to determine what it costs to deliver pre K, we need to resource that in the mixed delivery model. And then if there is whoever owns the oversight also needs to have some way to manage and monitor that. I don't know if you have any other thoughts on that. Those would be my initial areas that I would want to explore.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: From the committee? One of

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: Second. So you talked about oversight and responsibility there. And I think I heard you say that you still support the joint oversight of pre K. Okay, I just wanna- What we're working on those, making sure that that oversight is streamlined, right? Because we recognize that there's a lot of different compliance requirements, we're trying to streamline that and leverage the expertise that both agencies have and bring that to bear in a way that is even more impactful.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Any other questions? Thank you both for being here today, and feel free to come back anytime.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Thank you for your patience.

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: You're gonna get sick of us.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: We'll give the education committee a reprieve for a little bit. So one question would be just because you're folks that we don't normally communicate with like we do with the AHS folks, how is it best to ensure that we get feedback from you as the draft develops?

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: Absolutely. I'll follow-up on the email and connect you with our policy director. And also, it's great to stay coordinated with Suzanne and Maureen and her

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: office, which have worked with and scheduled. Okay. All right, thank you so much. We really appreciate Thank being here

[Zoe Saunders (Secretary of Education, Vermont AOE)]: for having us.

[Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Okay, committee, we are going to take, I mean, just a 10 break.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, DCF – Child Development Division)]: Ten minutes, we've said ten minutes.