Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Okay, good morning. Welcome back to House Human Services. And we are going to take up our pre K continuing discussions this morning. And we are going to be hearing this morning from the principal, superintendents and school board associations. And we welcome them. So I'm not sure if you want to come up together. If you do, then just there should be a folding chair there by Matt. Can leave that one there because council might pop in. Sure. Never know. They disappear, right? Yeah. Welcome to House Human Services, and we're happy to have you here. We have members who have had to pop in and out, but failed to be back. And we have a member who is joining us remotely. So why don't we just do a quick around the room introductions? So I'm representative Theresa Wood. I'm from Waterbury. I also serve Bolton Peel's core in Huntington. My school districts are Harwood and Mount Mansfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Anne Donahue from Northfield, Berlin. So Paine Mountain and all Berlin, etcetera.

[Representative Daniel Noyes]: Good morning, I'm Daniel Noyes, represent Wilkett, Hyde Park, Johnson, and Belvedere, so Lamoille North and Orleans Southwest. Brenda

[Representative Brenda Steady]: Steady, East Milton Westford, so I'm West ford Elementary, Essex High School in Milton High School in Milton Elementary.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: Doug Bishop from Colchester's Chittenden twenty district, Colchester School District. Hi,

[Representative Theresa Wood]: good to

[Representative Esme Cole]: see you. I'm Esme Cole, I'm from Hartford, so Hartford High School obviously, but we also get an alfighting. We have the Brooklyn Bridge, where I went to school, and White River Elementary School too.

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano]: I'm Rey Garofano, I represent 23, Essex and Essex Junction, and we're EWSD. Represent Eastes, do you want to introduce yourself?

[Representative Zon Eastes]: Sure, hi, my name is Zon Eastes, I live in Guildford, and I represent Guildford and Vernon, and so I'm at Windham's Southeast Supervisor Union.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Thank you, and represent McGill.

[Representative Brenda Steady]: Hi, I'm Jubilee McGill, and I represent Report Middlebury, New Haven, and Rich.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: And we've all been dealing with school districts.

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: Ah, oh, yes, I have Mount E and Addison Center.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: And right, Brown, starting with our committee assistant? I like to keep private

[Representative Brenda Steady]: where I live.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Laurie is a former social studies teacher.

[Representative Daniel Noyes]: Oh

[Representative Theresa Wood]: yeah, there's probably lots of current or former school board members around the table too, including me. So welcome and just introduce yourselves for the record and we're happy to have

[Representative Brenda Steady]: you here.

[Sue Ceglowski]: Thank you so much. It's really nice to meet all of you and hear about the different school districts you're associated with. I am Sue Zoglowski. I am the Executive Director for the Vermont School Boards Association.

[Sandra Cameron]: Hi, I'm Sandra Cameron. I'm Associate Executive Director for Vermont School Boards Association. And I just want to say prior to that, since we're sharing my roles were early in director in Barrie, which is quite in Vermont standards quite a large at the time supervisor union and regional act 166 coordinator. Great, that's good to know.

[Sue Ceglowski]: And I'm here today on behalf of, of course, the Vermont School Boards Association, but also the Vermont Superintendent's Association and the Vermont Principals Association. And we really thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill. We understand that the committee is working on this legislation with the expectation that it will be considered for inclusion in whatever comprehensive legislation is ultimately taken up by the House.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: That is correct.

[Sue Ceglowski]: Thank you. It's clear also that there's a commitment to a mixed delivery system, respect for the work of public schools and the private providers, and there's a desire to improve access and quality for children and families, and sufficient equitable resources for the providers, both public and private. The nature and pace of education related policy matters before the General Assembly is expansive. While several committees are deliberating on statewide education transformation focusing on cost containment through consolidation, there is other activity in the building that could affect public education policy and cost. Our associations are actively engaged in discussions regarding two dozen bills, several of which would increase education costs if implemented. So while some committees are working to articulate strategies for cost containment, others are working to add more spending. Last year, Act 73 was passed as a sweeping education transformation initiative, yet there remains significant uncertainty about its path to implementation and the reorganization of public education. The General Assembly exhibits variability of thinking and related proposals, and there is uncertainty around education funding. In the context of lack of stability and opposing perspectives, education leaders are being challenged to weigh in on policy matters other than at a high level. This is a time of great uncertainty, and we cannot predict what is going to happen. There are numerous intricacies of a very complex universal pre K system within a much larger public education system. And we hope to support the committee's understanding of some of those intricacies. So in this spirit, we're going to focus on five key areas and those areas are equity, enrollment and capacity, funding and cost considerations, federal requirements of the local education agencies, and lastly implementation. We recognize the committee's intention to improve the Pre K system and applaud the focus on quality, equity, and cost effectiveness. Pre K represents two grade bands in a 15 grade band system, Pre K three through grade 12. We are greatly appreciative that you acknowledge the importance of early childhood educators who are licensed by the agency of education. Our commitment to improving Vermont's universal pre K system is unwavering. In the written testimony that we'll send to you later today, we have a link to the final report to the legislature by the Pre Kindergarten Education Implementation Committee, and that was from 2024. That committee was created to assist the state in improving and expanding accessible, affordable and high quality pre kindergarten education for all four year old children on a full day basis on or before 07/01/2026. We created that meeting. The 18 member committing that monthly from July 2023 through November 2024 and included a representative from each of our three associations, the VSBA, VSA, and BPA. And the report, as I'm sure you know, concluded by stating the committee agreed on the importance of maintaining the pre kindergarten for three year olds and expanding pre kindergarten for four year olds while acknowledging the need for more data and cost analysis to recommend an implementation plan. Additionally, the committee acknowledged that changes to pre kindergarten must be considered in the context of the Commission on the Future of Public Education's policy recommendations. So, we are offering the following specific feedback on the draft bill. In the area of equity, we agree that Universal Pre K does not now and never has addressed equity. We agree that the responsibility of providing access to pre kindergarten belongs to school districts. And that stated, we want to note that while the responsibility belongs to school districts, districts have no ability to direct or oversee the operations of private providers. That responsibility falls to state regulators with public and private providers operating under different rules, regulations, and conditions. One example is that school districts typically operate with higher levels of liability protections than do private providers and could find themselves accountable for actions of private providers despite the fact that they have no authority related to the operation of those providers. Under enrollment and capacity, we support the inclusion of three year olds in pre kindergarten and we understand that there may need to be a difference in the pre K hours for three year olds in order to contain costs. We understand that the current rule allows families to access universal Pre K funding if they choose Pre Kindergarten enrollment when their child is age eligible for kindergarten. And we support the wording in draft 3.1, which is five years of age, but not yet eligible for kindergarten with the following requirement. There should be a rule allowing a child to stay in Pre K if their IEP team, including the family, decides that it's the least restrictive environment. Otherwise, children who are five should go to kindergarten where they can get full day, full year, and sometimes summer learning. Some children attend kindergarten for two years to help them smooth the transition into first grade. These decisions should be made with the full education team. We are concerned about the ability of the school district to ensure capacity in a mixed delivery model when the stability of private programs cannot be ensured. As an example, imagine a district with 100 pre K students. 50 are served in public schools and 50 in private programs. Imagine a situation where a large center suddenly closes mid year. How will the provision of pre kindergarten be insured for those students for the rest of that school year? Under funding and cost considerations, we appreciate that the committee is focused on equitable access and opportunity statewide and is seeking more information on cost implications from, the Joint Fiscal Office. We recommend that the committee review JFO's report on early learning and care system issued in 2025 summarizing the childcare contribution composed of a payroll tax. This report states that in fiscal year 2025, $80,400,000 in revenue was deposited into the child care contribution special fund, representing eleven months of collections. The January 2026 consensus revenue forecast estimates that the payroll tax will raise $88,600,000 in fiscal year twenty twenty six and $92,200,000 in fiscal year twenty twenty seven. JFO may be able to advise the General Assembly on the use of the CCC revenue to support that mixed delivery system. Next, there is an interest in achieving parity in the amount of funding per student provided to public schools and private providers. Draft 4.1 adds new language stating that a licensed private provider shall employ or contract for the services of at least one teacher who is licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or in early childhood special education under Chapter 51 of Title 16. There is a bill, S206, that aims to create three tiers of credentials licensed by Secretary of State Office of Professional Regulation and not the Agency of Education. We want to confirm that the language in draft 4.1, page four, requires a teacher to be licensed and endorsed as an early childhood educator or early childhood special educator by the agency of education. Thank And

[Representative Theresa Wood]: since you're referring to that language, I just want to point out it's a construct of the way Legg Council has constructed the language, but you'll see later in that same version that all classrooms are required to have a pre K in both in public and private are required to have a licensed pre K teacher. So I didn't know if you saw that construct later in the bill.

[Sue Ceglowski]: Thank you. We haven't landed on the on ramp and whether or not there'll be some distinction in payment if you do or you don't, our intention is achieving parity in what is being paid, that there needs to be parity with regard to the qualifications of the people in the classroom. Thank you very much. A future foundation formula with additional weights for specific students should apply to all students pre K through grade 12. The Pre K Implementation Committee reviewed information regarding pupil weights and was unanimous in their belief that the pupil weight for a full school day, full school year pre kindergarten education student would be at least one point zero. Research and proposals on pupil weights to date have excluded Pre K.

[Representative Brenda Steady]: The

[Sue Ceglowski]: conclusion, excuse me, the proposal of categorical aid to fund Pre K has been discussed and Secretary Saunders has cautioned around increased spending. And we want to provide some more context. Currently funding to support Universal Pre K is embedded within the complex Pre K through Grade 12 educational funding system. Pre kindergarten students are weighted at 0.46 FTE, that is to say a pre K student is counted in the district's average daily membership at a prorated amount. Our superintendent colleagues note that public education programs are built and expanded in order to meet community needs, but because of this discrepancy in pupil weight as compared to the rest of the K-twelve delivery system, it is often at significant expense to the district. Unfortunately, in times of economic instability, these programs are amongst those that are cut when communities can't pass budgets. In places where there are childcare deserts, this is particularly acute. Any changes now or in FY27 will affect the overall Pre K through grade 12 system because budgets have already been approved and passed. Any unfunded mandate will require school systems to cut staffing and programs within the full Pre K through grade 12 system. Draft 4.1 proposes that tuition paid under this section shall be at a statewide rate, which may be adjusted regionally, that is established annually through a process jointly developed and implemented by the Agencies of Education and Human Services. Pre K tuition should be subject to an analysis that includes all aspects of the Pre K through grade 12 public education system and any changes to Pre K tuition should be made in advance of school district budgeting processes. The cost of education is directly correlated with student staff ratios. Conversations about the higher cost of educating students in small classes are happening in grades K through 12. Pre K should be included in these deliberations. In order for the mixed delivery model to be cost effective and sustainable, there may need to be requirements around minimum group size. Assigning districts or whatever new governance configurations may be with new duties and obligations for ensuring access and capacity to serve all pre K children constitutes a new mandate. An assignment of this type would add unpredictability and in all likelihood expansive new requirements for the public education system. Administrative costs could be offset by eliminating the dual agency regulation of Pre K. And regarding Pre K coordinators, school systems assign their staff based on needs and resources. Sometimes the administrator serving as the Pre K coordinator has another administrative role in order to be the most cost effective. I'll now just briefly cover the federal requirements of the local education agencies. Child Find and special education are federal requirements of the local education agencies, which is the school district. And they are responsible for identifying and serving young children who may have a disability. LEAs are responsible for evaluations and any additional support and services that students need and are entitled to.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: When they're doing the child find, are they looking I'm trying to recall on my front porch form posting from our school district, whether or not they're specifically looking for three year olds and above. Is that the age that they're looking for?

[Sue Ceglowski]: The Kinney Vento homelessness education is another responsibility of the local education agency and English learner requirements such as assessments, accommodations, and supports are a responsibility of the LEA. A Categorical A program should consider all requirements of the LEAs, including federal requirements and the staff qualification requirements of each setting. I'll move on now to implementation, getting toward the end. Implementation will require support. Implementation of Act 166 in 2014 included two effective provisions. First was the first year pilot program for districts that were better prepared to implement the transition on a shorter timeline. And second was full count of anticipated pre K students in year one. Districts analyzed and submitted their best estimate of the number of pre K students who would access universal pre K. And this was included in the fall census count and reconciliation was done later in the school year. This decreased the financial burden on school districts by eliminating the two year averaging practice during the

[Representative Theresa Wood]: first year of required implementation. So,

[Sue Ceglowski]: this was a provision of Act 166 that allowed districts to analyze and submit their best estimate of the number of pre K students who would access universal pre K in the first year. And that was included in the fall census count and then reconciliation was done later in the school year.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: So now where it had, so that, that would have been in session law because it was time limited. So we don't see that in the underlying bill or of the underlying law. The because we've talked about this two year averaging provision that's in the that's in the current statute and have wondered and raised some concern about, you know, high variability, you know, so you gave an example of a private pre k that, you know, closed its doors. We had one in Chittenden County that closed yesterday. I don't know if they were a pre K provider or not, but so I I think that you raise an important point about that, and I think that we need to think about how we account for the private enterprise and decisions that a business owner might make that is different than obviously a public school, which is voted on by some, whether a school board or the electorate votes on that. So I think that's an important consideration both in the school district having responsibility and then also in this two year, the thing that's in there now around the two year average. I feel like we need to figure out some way to deal with that variability.

[Sue Ceglowski]: And this is in our written testimony if you want to refer back to it.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Yes, well, and I was just going to ask you to make sure to submit that when you're Yes, we will.

[Sue Ceglowski]: As the General Assembly works toward education transformation, it will be important to consider and align implementation timelines. The 2025 JFO report referenced earlier notes that before making further changes to the early care and learning system, the General Assembly might want to consider how the system fits into its larger education transformation goals and the overall impacts on children and families. As with other components of the education system that do not fit neatly into the system already, there are legitimate reasons why early care and learning has significant outstanding policy considerations. There are ongoing debates concerning which fund source is most appropriate for these services. Significant changes could end up reducing coverage, increasing capital costs or causing other unintended consequences. And that's the end of the quote from the Joint Fiscal Office. So in conclusion, we support efforts to improve the UPK system in ways that address equity, quality, and sustainability through an implementation process that considers the full landscape of educational transformation and the necessary timeline for these changes to take place. The effects of these changes should be monitored over time. School districts will be better positioned to pivot when the multi layered regulatory oversight is simplified and when the education funding system provides districts with resources they need to move forward.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Thank you. Thank you. It was actually helpful to hear that a lot of your testimony is aligning with the sort of direction that we're taking with a couple of key differences. Since you ended on regulatory, maybe we'll talk about that one first. Both AOE and AHS have indicated that they believe, this might not be the experience of the public school system, but they believe that sort of the initial kinks of the joint responsibility have essentially worked themselves out and they feel like it's pretty, they want to continue it anyways. Both entities have said that they wish to continue the joint responsibility in the pre K space. And we haven't heard otherwise other than what you've just been speaking of. Again, we haven't had the opportunity to talk with school districts directly. So you're representing their voice here. So does that surprise you that they wish to continue in that joint space? That's been consistent since implementation of 01/1966. There are still aspects that are challenging, fingerprinting is one of them. That's not going to go away actually with fingerprinting one is gonna be a challenge regardless if you have a joint, one agency or

[Sandra Cameron]: you I have know it's a different process. It's actually twice. It's actually duplicated. So pre K employees have to be then protected by the district and again, for the program. Let's see, that doesn't make sense. It never happens.

[Representative Brenda Steady]: So if we could address that.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: That's how we deal with why. Right, that doesn't make any sense. And so I'm not sure if it's the CC path we need to change, the act 76 or if we can make a change here, but if they need to be in the public schools in the public school side. Correct. Okay. Because I don't think they need to be fingerprinted twice on the private side. So that that doesn't it should satisfy both. Okay, all right, that's good. That's kind of specific feedback. Can

[Representative Doug Bishop]: you ask

[Representative Theresa Wood]: me a

[Representative Doug Bishop]: question specific to that? Of course, go ahead. For the program, for the school and for the program, is this when the program runs beyond the minimum ten hours a week?

[Sandra Cameron]: No, it's because pre K and public schools fall under CBD licensing. And so the licensing requires fingerprinting

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: and the district requires fingerprinting.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: I'm just gonna be probably more blunt than I should be, but I'm not sure why that hasn't been figured out. Why just something from AOE or something from CBD hasn't come out and said one satisfies the other. Is that something that you've asked for?

[Sandra Cameron]: Yes, many times.

[Representative Daniel Noyes]: Background checks across social services providers are a mess. They're horrible.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Yeah. It's a mess. So requiring it twice And is that a local school district or is that an AOE requirement on the education side that school districts also have to do it? Is that someplace in state statute or is that at the local school districts making their own determinations? I can research that for you. Okay. Because if they are, that's within their jurisdiction to just say, we don't need to do this if you've already been done. But we also can, the state level, say CDD doesn't need to require this if they've been done at the school district level.

[Representative Daniel Noyes]: And actually, is that the only background check, or are there other background checks that are required outside of fingerprinting? You do adult abuse, child abuse, sex offender, DMP, mean, there's some Through the Vermont Criminal Yeah, BCIC.

[Sandra Cameron]: Yes, and there are several layers to that.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Okay, all right, there's a very good specific example. What are some of the other things that you experienced that are things that potentially you're not very built to address?

[Sandra Cameron]: And I don't know that any of them will be quick. But there was work done when I was still a regional coordinator and we went through the CDD licensing and I outlined where requirements were duplicated between what's already implemented in the K-twelve system and then also applied within the CDD system. So that information exists and I can get it for you. I think hearing from districts, you'll hear examples of firsthand recent challenges for them. So that may be more useful as well. So

[Representative Theresa Wood]: you've referenced the pre K implementation committee that was work that was done as a result of Act 76 in our expansion. And that's honestly for us, that's in this committee. I didn't have our former vice chair and the person who reported the bill. Yes, here to recognize.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: We

[Representative Brenda Steady]: did have in the middle a study group to come together to figure out this problem with interpolting. And what we found was that it was federal, it became a federal issue that the Department of Education and the Department of Human Services at the federal level didn't want to work together, didn't want to do.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: We do know, and we'll get an update a little bit later, but CDD is actually, there's been a whole group working with the Department of Public Safety, with CDD around how can we streamline this because private providers are saying this is an issue for them too. They're not able to have somebody work independently with children for months. And I understand there's been quite a bit of work over this last summer and fall around this issue, but I don't know all the specifics of it. But we certainly could do something that and we can we can talk with deputy commissioner McLaughlin about, you know, is she gonna get terribly upset? We say that. You know?

[Representative Brenda Steady]: I already said.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Yeah. If we do something like that. Because that on that the fingerprinting alone, that seems something that shouldn't be a challenge, except I expect the deputy commissioner to say something like that it's a federal requirement under the revenue that they receive. However, pre K is not being paid for by that federal revenue, it's being paid for by Vermont tax dollars. So I would say that that argument would hold a lot of water with me. That's what I'm expecting her to say. Probably listening.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Of course you will be.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: So I was actually We have talked, and I think, as you know, And I appreciate you acknowledging that ACT 166 and the notion of universal pre K that it has never been universal from the outset. And that was something that became so apparent to us during the childcare expansion discussions that we felt like we had to start to address it. When nobody's responsible, nobody's responsible. And really, and this has been confirmed by our recent work that the only thing that ACT 166 does, it says if you as a parent or guardian can find pre K, you're entitled to get ten hours. The state will pay for ten hours through the Ed Fund for you. But as time has gone on, it's been over a decade now, we have come to understand the importance of early education and learning in terms of the preparation for the child's incoming education experience and understand that it can't just be an optional thing that if you can find it, you're lucky. And so we're taking the equity issue seriously and really are kind of focusing in on that as one of the key things, as well as the parity of payment and educational requirements in the classroom. So it was news to us, however, that under state law, neither the public or the private are required to have a licensed teacher in the classroom. That's only required under collective bargaining agreements in the schools. It's not required in state law in the pre K Act 166. The rule can't be contrary to the law. So that was an interesting discovery for us and one that we're actually changing. I'm trying to, as I'm babbling on here, I'm trying to remember what the second major thing was that we had some differences on. One was the oversight and it wasn't the payment, but it'll come to me. So one of the reasons that we're thinking about categorical aid is, and we're not meaning categorical aid, and this is something that AoE was clear about. We're not thinking about categorical aid as being on top of ed spending. We're talking about it because as you pointed out in the calculation for whatever foundation formula ends up coming out, it has been embedded within that. So we are talking about it being embedded, even if it is a categorical aid. And one of the reasons that we're talking about it in that way is to assure that there's equity in payment between the public system and the private system, but are talking also about an administrative cost on top of that for school systems, because they have additional costs that are related to implementation or assurances of access and things like that. And whether they decide to do a pre K coordinator, certain regions or districts are formed, that would be something that would be left up to the districts. Representative Steady, did you

[Representative Brenda Steady]: have a question? You reached out to superintendents that actually do this. I do my homework because I'm not qualified to make these decisions. So I reached out to the superintendent and I got this. There are still too many unanswered questions regarding unintended consequences for three year olds, including access to qualified pre praised programming, child fine, access to services for children with disabilities, Head Start programming. And we did hear from the Head Start coordinator she wasn't thrilled about it. Like many bills, it is unclear about the unintended consequences for taxpayers, which we all know a lot of people are struggling right now and leaving Vermont, and not being able to feed their own families of people that are not comfortable asking for state assistance to act like

[Sue Ceglowski]: a wicked pride. For taxpayers, expansion always means someone has to foot the bill. So I think it's important we reach out to the people that actually do this work. And I'm sure you must know that. Yes, we absolutely And that's why this testimony that we're providing today is actually joint testimony of the three associations, the superintendent's association, the principals association

[Representative Brenda Steady]: and

[Sue Ceglowski]: support.

[Representative Brenda Steady]: So with that being said, what do you think about three year olds? And what do you think about the burnout in high school and kids, the truancy in kids quitting? Do you think it's a correlation?

[Sandra Cameron]: You wouldn't want to research I think that would

[Representative Brenda Steady]: be a big research because right now they're looking at truancy up to eighteen to twenty days, and they're looking at big dropout rates right now. And I'm wondering if they're burned out by the time they get to high school with all of this early education. I mean, they're all gone home when they're three years old, four years old, five years old, but by time they get to high school, they're, oh, they're done. So that's my 2¢. Representative Bishop.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: Representative Steady, in your remarks, seen your reference, I think you implied or stated that there was some reservation on the part of Head Start to include three year olds where my recollection is the testimony of Head Start and all other witnesses stress the importance of the inclusion Correct. Of of the of of

[Representative Brenda Steady]: of

[Representative Theresa Wood]: I heard it different. Yeah, she was very clear. All of our witnesses actually have been very clear that the inclusion of three year olds is important and that two years of prepay, even at a lower, even if we're not able to increase ten hours, two years at ten hours is better than one year at 20 for four year olds. They've been very clear about that.

[Representative Brenda Steady]: And then I talked to the superintendent. That's interesting to have different people perceive.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: I think everybody's entitled to their individual perspectives, of course. That wouldn't hurt to listen

[Representative Brenda Steady]: to the testimony from Head Start because

[Representative Theresa Wood]: I to go back and say there was something to do with the financial piece and so on. I think that maybe the thing that you're referencing is that we've had several witnesses testify that if we change pre K access for three year olds, meaning take it away, that would have a financial impact for the infant and toddler program because that is so much more expensive. I believe that's what you're referring to. Which

[Representative Doug Bishop]: is also included in the JFO report on this. It talks in some detail about the delicate balance of having pre K students in to ensure that they can maintain infant and toddler.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: This is great. Thank you. It breaks my heart for the three year olds to listen to them.

[Sandra Cameron]: Our training is around developmentally appropriate play based. It's not

[Representative Doug Bishop]: required. Parents not required during

[Representative Theresa Wood]: the pandemic.

[Representative Brenda Steady]: I know, want to give it to my kid. Are

[Representative Theresa Wood]: there any other questions for the witnesses? Do we have any other questions for the witnesses? Are still sort of like, and we're probably not gonna be the final decision makers on how this is paid for. That's gonna be across the hall in ways and means. They seem to be at least at last blush also leaning in the categorical aid bucket at this point in time. And we'll make a recommendation. Essentially, our stuff is gonna be recommendations to other committees. So we appreciate some of the very specific things that you brought up. And I know there was one other thing that we had differing thoughts about, and I can't think of the second, what the second thing is. I should have written it down, but I thought I was gonna remember it, right? Yes, go ahead.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: I have a question while you're thinking.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Go ahead, Esme. I'm gonna look at the bill and maybe it'll pop up at me.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: If I understood correctly, you expressed some concern about the difficulty of the expense to districts with a point four six weight for a pre k student. And I'm trying to better understand that. Is that because the districts are expanding past the minimum ten hours a week, and thus it creates a challenge because you're trying to provide enhanced service but with the same it would be with the same amount of money. Is that the problem? And I know that there are some expenses that districts may incur that not all providers do, but I think there are also certainly expenses that private providers are incurring in trying to manage familiarity with the Greater Burlington IHA where I've worked for a number of years.

[Representative Esme Cole]: And they're working with, there's basically a full time staffer who's doing all of these CCFA grading, UPK, working with multiple school districts whose expenses incurred at that end as well. So I'm trying to better understand that Thank point you

[Sandra Cameron]: you. So like most things, it's multifaceted. The 0.46 provides some funding, but limited. School And districts do not bill, even if they provide more than ten hours, they won't bill families for beyond that. So they build it into their budget and if approved, the local budget is covering anything beyond what it's provided through that 0.46 wait. Many schools have increased to beyond ten hours, they've implemented a couple meals each day, they're doing transportation, they've got lots of other things, nursing services. Those expenses have to be covered in the pre K-twelve full system then because there's just not enough funding and there's no way to access more funding right now, even if you want to do more, that's one layer. Layer two is we absolutely are seeing and now have some data around an increase of children who have special needs enrolled in public schools, mostly because those services are there. And so the cost of educating a cohort of children who are in the public school, many more of whom have needs, is higher than, say, a child who doesn't have needs. And that all has to be factored into the whole budget.

[Representative Esme Cole]: Are there no other opportunities to change the weight for a student that may have special needs in the pre K setting?

[Sandra Cameron]: Not currently.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: I think part of the thing that we're struggling with is that there's Pre K has been sort of in, but not completely in, in terms of how the education system as a whole views it. And we're trying to change that perception to really stop talking about K to 12 and then pre K as an add on, Talk about pre K to 12. And I think that's part of the dilemma right now. And are we exacerbating that by saying, well, let's do this through categorical aid. And there's pluses and minuses to that. And part of it is a recognition that it's a mixed delivery system and wanting to not have that variability that we're actually talking about. That's part of what caused us when we were talking about Act 76 to start to have bigger concerns because we heard from some school districts that actually provided full time pre k. And yes, they were only getting a point four six student weight, but all the everybody was paying for it because it was included in their budget and approved by the voters. And then other school districts that didn't offer any public pre K and that still exists. And those families didn't have access to private pre K either. And so, we have been struggling a little bit with whether to allow that or not, whether to allow beyond what is funded to be part of the to be a local decision about whether it's done or not. I think that's probably gonna be a decision that doesn't get made here. We'll make a recommendation about that, but it's gonna end up with however the funding system is decided and how much latitude there's going to be at the local level versus a foundation formula of some sort. So we do feel a little bit like we're trying to make recommendations on something that really isn't defined yet. And so it's a of a unique position that we're in, which is causing us consternation. And we know that people are watching what we're doing as they should. And I think some of the more controversial things that we had contemplated, we've now moved back. Oh, I know what it was. Oh, see, just popped into it because we now move back.

[Sandra Cameron]: It's on the very first page of

[Representative Theresa Wood]: the bill. It's the five year olds. And the three organizations prefer our original language that said eligible for instead of not yet enrolled. Could you elaborate a little bit more about that? Because our thinking was actually along the same lines that you were talking about with kids could stay two years in kindergarten if developmentally appropriate. We were kind of using that same rationale about them having access to pre K for a longer period of time, even if they were eligible to enroll, because that might be more developmentally appropriate and the decision that a parent might want to make with the consultation of their teacher particularly around social emotional development and stuff like that. So could you elaborate a little bit more about that point? Because that was We went back and forth on it, I'll be honest. But with the same rationale that you were using about having them enrolled in K.

[Sandra Cameron]: They'll get all day school year and often summer services. So that's a major point right there. It's just the expanded opportunity for five year olds who enter kindergarten, and there's no reason why they couldn't stay in kindergarten two years. Some schools do like a K4, K5, there's lots of different scenarios out there to think about and consider. I think one thing that's what I experienced as an early childhood special educator is when a child is four or five and thinking about that kindergarten year, perhaps they have an area of development that's not exactly where we would hope it is. A family sees that greatly so as an immediate need and a need to do something right now. An educator sees it in a continuum of education. And so it feels really time sensitive at four and five for families feeling like we don't wanna move on, they're not ready. And what I will say is they've got time to grow over the years. They can repeat grades at any point in their career. Children with IEP can stay till they're 21. So that's why I think it's really important for the education team to be informing that decision so they can help families and the team move through that conversation of a whole education

[Representative Theresa Wood]: And I think you make an important point that at K, and again, it's not required, but at K, they're going to have access to more than ten hours a week. That's not actually, think that that's actually a really good point. That those kids that are requiring additional developmental progress to be at the place where folks would hope they would be entering kindergarten or first grade. I think that's an important point since it is unlikely that we're gonna be able to increase the number of hours. I think that's a really good point that they actually wouldn't have access to more support if they moved to K.

[Sandra Cameron]: And one more safeguard I just thought of, and that is that young children, early childhood special education goes through age six. So regardless of whether they're in a pre K or in a K, those protections are there through age six.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Yeah, go ahead, Anne.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Yeah, I just think it's sort of to say that it needs to be a team, the parents and the educators, sort of is in a sense a midway point of recognizing if that team agrees they really need another year pre k and the fewer hours, then it should still be included. But if it really looks like this is nervous parents and it's better for the child to make the move on to pre K, then that should be part of the formula. It's not just any child who doesn't enroll in pre K is eligible to, I mean, enroll in kindergarten is eligible to stay in pre K and be funded. That makes a lot of sense, I think. It's not closing the door to another year of pre K being funded as the other language in a way would have done. But We it's based

[Representative Theresa Wood]: could say is not yet eligible to enroll and say unless the- Based upon. Right. Unless there's a team decision otherwise. So that the default is that you move on to K, unless the team decides otherwise. I think that's a good compromise on that. So, phew, I'm helping so much better. As soon as the clock strikes ten, I would have remembered and we would be down on the floor and I'd say, I'm be right time. Any other questions for these witnesses? We so appreciate you being here this morning and you had a lot of good information in there. So if you could send that to Laurie straight away, that would be great. And our intent is to move. We have to vote on something by tomorrow to move it along in the process so that education can have it and ways and means. And so hopefully you'll have one less of the number that you cited of Ed bills. And we may go ahead and actually include the Northeast Kingdom information in this bill so that all the pre K stuff goes together, the access up in the Northeast Kingdom to the New Hampshire program. So thank you very much.

[Sue Ceglowski]: We really appreciate Thank you for all your attention to all these important details.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Thanks so much. Committee members update on scheduling. So we have a joint conference at ten, I mean, a caucus of the whole, whatever that's called. And that's to review budget and ask any questions on budget. We have potential retention at 10:30. We are going to be back on the floor at one and our committee has received permission from the speaker's office to be off the floor between three and 4PM. That was the only time that we could get all of the JFO people that we need and the two attorneys. So we will be watch the clock. We will be convening our committee at 3PM up here for an hour, and then we will return to the floor. So also, I don't see Eric here, but Jill hasn't let me know the speaker hasn't let me know yet whether she's gonna move our bills up, but be on the alert because that might happen. Okay? Alright. Thank you, Laurie.