Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Okay, welcome back to House Human Services. We are here to kick off our discussion of pre K, and we are going to start off with Representative Bishop's proposal, sort of two part proposal. So I'm going to do you want to we don't need the background because I think you told us the background, but do you want to review the language? Do you want to have Katie review the language or Beth? How do you

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: want I would rely on legislative counsel to Okay. Review

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: All right. That sounds good.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Can I give a one minute

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Yes, absolutely? I was just Yeah, absolutely. Go ahead.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: So I think we've come to learn in even greater detail, this is sort of a fragile system. Many aspects of it, it works, but it's fragile. And the language that I've offered is out of a place of being concerned about the workforce fragility that's part of this system. And while I agree with and appreciate the direction of our discussions about equalizing both pay and qualifications with respect to the delivery of universal pre K, I have concerns about the ability in the private aspects of this mixed delivery system to currently meet that. So out of a concern about moving too fast or to give some cover, if you will, in the meantime, so we can get the private sector on par, as is the goal expressed here in the committee. I suggested that perhaps we have a two tier. One, well, we'll go through the tiers, but basically maintaining current level of payments for those who are meeting the current requirements in the private setting. But as a private setting is able to meet the enhanced licensed provider in the classroom, they would be eligible for the higher pay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Thank you. Thank you, Katie and Beth. I pulled the document. So Katie McNabb, Legislative Council.

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

[Katie McNabb (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I pulled open the document, and I'm on page four. That's where the first change is. And this creates a tiered system of rates where private providers, public providers, would be operating under one rate. So this is sort of a two part amendment because we make some language changes here, and then there's some more specific language making the rates work. So for the purposes of a licensed private provider, they could choose one of two options. They could employer contract the services of at least one teacher. So that's sort of the status quo of what's happening now. Or

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm Sorry. Just

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Is this draft 2.2 of Doug's?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Oh, you're on page four. Okay. That answers my It's highlighted. Gotcha. Okay.

[Katie McNabb (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good? Okay. And then the second option for private providers is to ensure the pre K education is provided by a teacher who is licensed and endorsed in certain early childhood education or early childhood special education. So that would be consistent with what is required of the public providers. So private providers would have the choice between the two. And then we have the language in B that's specific to public providers, and that isn't changing. It's still, as under your amendment, have

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: to go.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: And

[Katie McNabb (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then I will move on. So Beth, I'll let you discuss the two rates, and let's

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: do it for Sure.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Nope. I can't see through your oh, no, wait, but I have my own here. There you go. Okay, so we're going to move to page five, line 10. So currently, there's one statewide rate. Now we're going to have two rates. So annually, the agencies Education Human Services shall establish two statewide tuition rates. We keep the same qualification that the rates may be adjusted regionally and that the process is jointly developed and implemented by both agencies. If we get to the language that Katie and I have drafted from yesterday, you'll see additional changes regarding approval by the general assembly, but that's not in this draft. The first rate established by the agencies, what shall be the highest rate, shall be for pre qualified providers that provide pre K education through a teacher who is licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or in early childhood special education under Chapter 51 of this title. This rate shall be paid to all public pre qualified providers School district, in order to take public school, you have to be licensed anyway. And any private pre qualified provider that provides pre K through a license.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Through or by?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think we can debate word choice if you choose to go with this language. Okay. Thanks. I would honestly defer to the field on what makes the most sense to them. I'm not sure that through or by. Through

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: to me implies that something could continue in the way that it is now. Just I

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

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: We'll debate the language if we decide to go with this.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was thinking of it as the vessel of the teaching.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I hear you. If one person's confused, then more than one person's trying to

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

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. The second rate established by the agency shall be for pre qualified private providers that employ your contract for the services of at least one teacher who is licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or an early childhood special education, but such teacher does not actually teach pre kindergarten education within the classroom or classrooms operated by the pre qualified private provider. And then a district shall pay tuition upon receiving notice from the child's parent or guardian that the child is or will be admitted to the pre K program. That's current law. I don't know why it's highlighted. Okay.

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

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think we changed anything. I don't think we changed anything else for option one. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Okay. So there's option one, and then there's option two. Let's look at option two so we know what we're considering, which is on a start to it's noted on page 13.

[Katie McNabb (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Option two, we have the the single rate for the whole states. We don't have the tiered rates, and we're using striking through the existing language for private for private providers, allowing them to meet the current status quo, everyone would be moving to the what we're now calling the the public provider rate and requirement for a teacher. And what's important here is the effective date, which is that that would take effect 07/01/2031.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: And the provisional licensure, is that something that would be in either option one or two?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I think it could be, and I'm not sure this language is necessary based on our conversation that we had yesterday. It's not if you want to allow the current process to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: play Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Okay. We essentially have the option one, two rates based upon two different qualifications on the private side. Public side stays as is essentially, which requires a licensed teacher. Or we have everybody needs to be licensed, but those who are not licensed currently have a ramp, which to be honest, I was going to suggest the seven years, which is longer than the one that is here, but it would recognize that most of these folks are going to be working and probably doing this part time. It would give additional time to gain your teaching credentials if you're not already. So what are thoughts of the committee? I'll tell you my

[Unidentified Committee Member]: thoughts if you want to know my thoughts.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I'm looking at me, but my thoughts are I have a hard time with the differential rate. And I've spoken to represent Bishop about this. I have a hard time with the differential rate because it is setting up two different classifications of And pre I don't think that that's good policy. I recognize the reasoning behind it totally. But if we are looking at saying that we want to improve equity in the system, it doesn't do that. And so I personally go for the option with a slightly even longer ramp date of seven years from whenever this is enacted. So that's one of the things that I wanted to ask for a little bit of clarification because we've talked about all the changes being effective whenever the foundation formula goes into effect. But I would want the teacher qualification to go into effect whenever this bill passes so that that seven years starts now as opposed to four or five years or two years or whenever the foundation formula ends up starting. Okay. So that's my thoughts. Was my reaction as well. I just think if even in the

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: long term a private provider doesn't want to get into the pre K provision, they can keep doing what they're doing in terms of childcare, but if they want to be doing pre K then I think they need to be by the state for pre K. I think it should be the same criteria as for any pre K. I mean, don't think we should have two different quality levels offered of pre K for what's supposed to be a universal pre K system.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Other thoughts by people?

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I would just add that I appreciate, particularly with the extension of the date out to, believe we now be looking at 2033, And I hope that our private pre K setting can get there with respect to having licensed teachers in the classroom. It's been a struggle. I'm not sure what's gonna help us turn the corner on that. So I don't know that there's any guarantee that that will be, in what timeframe that will be available to us in the private sector. And it's ultimately, for me, the eyes on having as robust offerings for mixed delivery as possible, and that there is an impact that UPK, I think, would have on the broader spectrum that if a program can't participate in UPK, is it still as strong as we want those providers to be in the private setting? Families have different needs, whether it's geographic, whether it's hours of service, I'm still not clear on a picture of how the public school setting provides the same coverage, if you will, for families. So that's just where I'm at. I like the extension of the date and I would hope that with that aspiration that we would get there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: One of the things that I was just thinking about is that as the vice chair said, CDD, have actually, we have resources in the system now for private providers in terms of professional development. So I'm wondering maybe something for us to consider is directing prioritization of professional development to focus on pre K licensure. That might be tying their hands a little bit too much, but it could be a, we suggest, so that there's some prioritization of that. Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: No, no, I said catching the thought because the same concerns that Doug is the same concern, like the bill, the policy is great. It's not an issue with the policy. My concern is kind of, do we have the infrastructure, the capacity to execute this? And when I'm looking at, yes, it can be managed, but bringing up the point, could it be more to put on the plate of office of professional regulations or the like? Yeah. But it's probably needed. These things need to be executed and and with a timeliness to where it's achievable. And I feel that, again, great policy, not disputing the policy, looking at it, can this be rolled out, executed to where it doesn't possibly result in losing positive outcomes. So your concerns, support where Doug's going, because it provides that those, guess what I'm getting at is we got to extend some of these timelines of when this stuff's gonna be implemented.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: And that's why I think, are you saying that you're supportive of this? I added actually two years, I think.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Two years.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Two years to what Doug was suggesting because I think most of these folks are gonna be working as well as trying to further their education. I was actually impressed by the educational attainment and process that people are working on that Ray shared earlier. And that was particularly with regard to home based folks that the majority of them already have their teaching license. And one of the things, the reason that we're having a say in this at all is because we have jurisdiction on the private side. And so I'm also looking at this as a way to make the private side competitive with the public school system in terms of qualifications of the staff. Because parents make decisions based upon those kinds of things, as well as not needing to provide transportation in between, partway through the day and needing to go to pick up and all of that.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Just quickly to that point, there are times when we up the bar, so to speak. We need to make sure that we have mechanisms and guardrails in place that don't unstabilize what is currently stable. And what I mean by that, there are some day cares or pre K providers that don't have the capacity at this time to hit those standards. Therefore, let's make sure we have the appropriate mechanisms into place to continue to support them until they can get up to those areas without unstabilizing that system as a whole. So,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: so I'm just not that a future legislature might do that on their own, but it might be good to have a check-in at five years, how many have attained it, because obviously the legislature in the future can always delay the implementation date if it's turning out to be a real struggle. People are working towards it, they can't get there, we don't wanna lose homes. That safety valve might be reassuring if we have a check-in in place.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: We could ask for a report on the status of the educational attainment of private providers. Because that also reminds a future life cycle to be looking at it. I think that's a good idea. So are people okay with going with the seven years with a check-in? I think maybe after four years, after four years to allow there to be some time for modification if there needs to be modifications.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And though we're already collecting the data, I believe, on how many of these private providers, like where they are, where they serve. So that should be at the same time. I'm sure it's a report that's also, but would be good to have them side by side.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I'm not seeing no noes. I'm not seeing no noes. Okay, so let's go with the seven years. I report back in four on educational attainment and making sure that this provision, the timelines for this provision, the effective date, however you guys do your magic about effective dates. I'm not exactly sure how it would be called. Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Doug, for doing the deep thinking about that and bringing that forward. So let's move to some of our financial questions that we had, all the places where I wrote ask JFO on this. This So section for just in kind payments. So however many of you want to join us at the table up front, you're welcome to join us. I know, or you can just sit there if you want, but it would be nice if at least one of you came up to the front so we can It's all good. You can take one of the chairs here. It appears that Nielsen is not going to be joining us and representative Eastes is online. Oh, yeah. Yeah. That's fine. Please hold.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: You made him. Just

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: to let you know, just to let folks know that if there is a roll call called under bail that's currently on the floor, we will be going down.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I heard that

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: it was

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: going to be, yes.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: That's why I asked

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: you because I think Lauren will stay. Oh no, we'll be going downstairs for a roll call. It's okay.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I have had some conversations with, well, one brief conversation with Emily and Ted. Oh, maybe you should introduce yourselves for the record.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: Hi, I'm Julia Richter, CFO. I focus on the education fund and education financing. That's why

[Emily Byrne (Deputy, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm here. Emily Byrne, deputy with Joint Fiscal Office. Did a lot of pre K stuff this summer.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office, Revenue Team)]: Hi, Barnett. Joint fiscal office on the revenue team, but also did a bunch of pre K stuff this summer.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So first off, can you describe for us we understand Act 73 requires an additional

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: something that you've got an RFP for up now? Sure. Yeah. So Act 73 Section 45A charged the Joint Fiscal Office with going out to contract with a contractor to look into and to come back to the general assembly with recommendations regarding a number of things. I'm happy to share the scope of work. It's been posted online in a few different places. But essentially, what that is, is recalculating the base and weights, as well as providing recommendations for other foundation formula related pieces, such as provision of CTE and sparsity, things that are a little, I think, less directly connected to this conversation. I clarify that the scope of work, the calculation of a pre K weight is outside of the scope of work of that contract that we are currently under contract with. And so why? Because the language did not include the requirement for JFO to look at a pre K weight.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So does it address pre K at all? I

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: can't speak to what the contractor's final report will say. And I will say that pre K falls outside of the scope of work of the contract that we have entered into.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Okay. Well, that's helpful to know. So part of what we are trying to do in this committee, and hopefully it will carry over into the education committee and the Ways and Means Committee, is to have people understand that pre K is part of the K to 12 continuum. So it's pre K to 12, not just K to 12. And that's on us to make sure that when we're reading proposed language, that it doesn't just isolate pre K as an add on someplace. So it doesn't sound like we have an opportunity to make a change in that at this point in time. Is that right? Yes.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: So the the contract has been executed. We're working with a contractor, AIR. The the report is due back to the general assembly next December. That said, I think that if there were to be a request from the general assembly for us to amend the scope of work, we could talk to our contractor, but that would require changing the scope of work and sort of reopening some of

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: those contract negotiations. So, okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So you have a signed contract? Correct. Okay. And is that contract within the appropriation that

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was set for it? Yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Is there any room in that appropriation?

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: No, the contract we were appropriating for $400,000 and the contract is based on deliverable. But assuming that we receive all deliverables, it will

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be $400,000 Okay. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: feel like we want to make a recommendation around how payment, we think, given a mixed delivery system, could work better than the use of weights. And that's through a the C word that I always forget.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: Categorical aid.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Thank you. I always want to say contingency, it's not contingency. I know that through categorical aid. And I'm just wondering it would be helpful, I guess I think we should at least propose it in our language. And then the people across the hall and downstairs can decide if they want to keep it. But I think that we should propose that there be an amendment to the work that has already started on that. Because if we don't, then I'm just trying to figure out how are we going to make the decision about do you feel like you have the tools in order to evaluate different payment options for pre K? Or should we be asking to increase the resources for that contract and the scope of that work?

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: So I'll answer part of that question and then defer to Emily and Ted. With respect to the contract specifically, I honestly don't know if we were to go to AIR and say, we'd like to amend the scope of work and give you additional monies, and can you do this work for us? If they would consider that within their bailiwick, and if they would be able to do that work. So that would be a conversation we would need to have with them. As to if we're in a position to recommend a payment, I certainly am not. Emily and Ted worked on the report over the summer.

[Emily Byrne (Deputy, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Right, I would say probably not. And I think the problem is there's chicken and egg issue, right? Hard to recommend a weight if you don't know how pre K fits into the greater end transformation picture, right? So if the instruction is ten hours, it's this age group, and it's provided in this way and these places, right? Then maybe either AIR with J, you know, like, then we could maybe And we want it to run through the education funding formula. That drives like, okay, then we model that out, right? Versus we want it to be categorically and it's gonna be the know, like that. So there's you know, it's hard to answer that question. It's hard to even direct a contractor, right? Come up with a weight for a program, but we're not exact, like, and we're going to keep it exactly the same as it is or we're not, right? And I think that was part of the challenge is that there was a lot of those questions remain unanswered with Act 73 and why it wasn't explicitly Why

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: we're here right now.

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

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So this is what I'm taking away from what you all are saying, is that you need more information, which we are providing guidance in the bill. We're sticking, I think, right now at ten hours because we're opting for equalized payments between private and public. And we're keeping three year olds in, same with four year olds. So they will be having the same thing. And the professional qualifications. So I think anybody on this committee is tied to weights or categorical aids. What we're tied to is equal payment between public and private. How that occurs, I think is an open question. And honestly, I don't think that we necessarily, I'll speak for myself, feel qualified to say categorical is better than inclusion as a weight in a formula. The Bs were looking for a weight of one point zero this morning. They're going to continue to advocate for that. And I doubt that they're going to get that with ten hours a week. It's not logical. So I'm feeling like we need more information from people who can evaluate one versus the other, given the parameters that we have and maybe some outline of things that we want people to understand. So we don't want it to be an add on. We want it to be inclusive within ed spending. So I guess where I'm thinking about now, given our deadline of having to get language out tomorrow, I'm thinking that maybe what we should be doing is instructing JFO and providing resources to do it, to contract or seek It could be an amendment to the existing contractor. It could be a different contractor or whatever, but to seek someone who is able to evaluate different funding mechanisms, both a categorical or inclusion in the weight. It seems like it would be simpler if it were the same contractor, if they are able to entertain. Otherwise, something new is gonna have to coordinate with them anyway because they're doing the rest of it. Does that seem like a direction that you think is a good direction or something that you can be, is doable?

[Emily Byrne (Deputy, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Having only thirty seconds to think about it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: You'll have other times. Possibly. I think it used It seems better than instructing you to do it at JFL.

[Emily Byrne (Deputy, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes. And I think there's still, and this is, we talked a lot about what goals are, right? And what would the goals be of one or the other? And what sort of behaviors would likely What are you trying to get the schools to do versus what private providers do? And depending on how that funding mechanism works and how it's implemented will change whether or not a school district decides to provide all day pre K anymore, if it does currently, or if it decides to increase its offerings, right? Like those, how you decide to allocate the money is going to push and pull on the system that way. So thinking through, yeah, like how, again, it's back in that chicken and egg place, right? Like, what is the hearing that sort of like the goal of equal payment, but then sort of that spins into like, okay, they get equal payment, that's going to interact with other pieces of the funding system. And then what will that ultimate what will the outcome ultimately potentially we don't actually know what the outcome will be, but what do we think sort of foresee that outcome to be in terms of who's providing services for how long and for how many kids.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Mean, all

[Emily Byrne (Deputy, Joint Fiscal Office)]: of Does that make sense?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Yeah, I mean, I think the, because this is a voluntary thing, based on parent or guardian choice, whether they choose one or the other or none. Those are all going be based on best estimates of what we know today and what we see down the line in terms of the number of kids who will ultimately enter the education system. So you're not going to get any estimates from us about that. And I know you're not expecting that. I'm just trying to give language to house education in ways and means that can be clear enough in terms of the direction and not be contrary to things that are already underway. But I guess what we're seeing is that folks haven't thought about pre K in the way we would like people to think about pre K, which is part of the education system and not this sort of off to the side and, oh yeah, we have to think about that. We may need an intent section. Yeah, we may actually need an intent language to make that clear. So there's a couple of specific questions because we have to be back on the floor by four. So we only have an hour dispensation to be off the floor. So do computers you in front of

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: you? Yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Well, I'm looking at draft 3.1, but I understand that we have a new draft on the website. Yeah, it's five

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office, Revenue Team)]: point three.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: Yeah, it's five point three. I'm doing a ton of things. Yeah,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I was conscious, was rushing up, so

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I left my laptop on the floor. Okay,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: All right, five point three. It's close

[Katie McNabb (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: seven. To

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Okay, so we were asking questions about this language and nobody in the room, Ledge Council or us, could really understand it. And it is on version 5.3. It is on page seven. It's essentially lines 10 through 16. Talking about providers that private providers that are not prequalified. You say the patient again. Sorry. Seven.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: With three.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office, Revenue Team)]: To clarify, is the question the extent to which people are We don't know what it means. Wilson, my immediate reaction is to confirm I would want to check with Janet McLaughlin at TD whether there are actually private providers who aren't pre qualified who are working with school districts. My assumption was always that private providers who were receiving tuition payments were pre qualified and that was the extent of the system, but I would want to confirm with CDD that my understanding of that section, that's what it would permit folks to do and what else I'm actually doing here.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Is this section permitting non pre qualified providers to work with school districts?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office, Revenue Team)]: To help them fulfill requirements that would essentially be substantially the same as if they're pre qualified. Right. Yeah, I know. That would be my non lawyer reading of this, to be clear. I

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: think it means. I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: read lines 10 through 13. The way I read lines 10 through 13

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: is

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: public school districts can work with private providers that aren't pre qualified in an effort to get them in a place where they can be pre qualified. But then I think lines 14 through 16 about in kind payments is where I am like, I have no idea what that I

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office, Revenue Team)]: think what we can do is check-in with CDD and see if they know anything about this section and get an answer to you all.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: With any of the circumstances where the contracting, private provider is contracting with someone and it's the same that the school district could be the entity which a private provider contracts with?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I really don't know. I'm a little flummoxed to be honest with you, because it always, through the whole bill, it talks about pre qualified providers and a process for pre qualification and rules about pre qualification. And then it's talking about permitting private providers that are not pre qualified to create partnerships with school districts that enable them to fulfill the requirements of being pre qualified. But we already say in the bill that because we are now giving the responsibility to school districts, that they would work with AOE, AHS, and other private and public providers to do that. To me, this looks like it's a school district is having some role in helping a private provider become pre qualified. And that seems like that's CDD's role to me.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I guess I can best reading to make it make sense is that they are helping them check that box of having either a licensed teacher on staff or contracting with someone to meet that qualification.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: And since we are saying you have to have a licensed teacher now. So I would appreciate any follow-up that somebody could do about figuring what that means. That would be great. And then I had a whole bunch of questions about pre kindergarten region, but I don't think that that is something that you guys need. So we started messing with language around average daily membership because we were thinking categorical grant. And so a categorical grant wouldn't they would not be then be included in the average daily membership. But now I think I'm gonna propose to the committee that we actually need more information from people who are able to help us evaluate which might be better if we outline the five or six things that want to, that we're trying to resolve, the outcomes. Probably then not change those things right now because they would be changed in the future based upon whatever report you would get back? Yeah, I would say

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: at the risk of telling you something that you already know, I would say that in terms of thinking about asking for further work or research into including it in categorical aid or including it as a weight, know that my understanding is that this conversation is happening in the context of 73 and education transformation. Categorical aid and its impact and including pre K as a weight would have significantly different impacts in our current financing system and in the foundation formula. So I would encourage you, you are going down the route of looking for more work to be done in this space, being explicitly clear as to if this work or recommendations is how pre patient fit within the foundation formulas contemplated in Act 73, or if there should be a change to current law.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Yeah, I mean, I think that one of the things that AoE said, and I don't think we had any different intention, is that pre K would be part of the cost of education, just like fourth grade would be or just like eleventh grade would be. And so I know that some other categorical aid things are outside the foundation formula. And that wasn't our intent with pre K. Really, the notion about categorical aid was to hopefully simplify the fact because we're dealing we're going to maintain a mixed delivery system. So we're making that policy decision. And that we are wanting to ensure that the same payments are made, that the same amount of resources, however you want to categorize it, are made to public and private. And so in talking with the chair of Ways and Means, they thought categorical might make that simpler and it might not, as more I'm learning. Definitely understanding that it impacts the work that's being done on understanding and defining what would be part of that foundation formula and all the additional stuff that was in Act 73. So I just think that we don't have sufficient information on which to make a recommendation, but we have sufficient information to say these are the outcomes that we would like to achieve. And we'd like to understand better through work by outside people. What are the implications for a foundation formula if we did this versus if we did this. And here are the outcomes that we have to assure happen. So I think that's probably the best that we're going to be able to do on this right now. But I think a couple of the main things that we are wanting to achieve is making an entity responsible because nobody's responsible right now. And so we do assign the school districts. And actually the bees said that they agree with the school districts being assigned, which I was surprised to hear this morning. But I think they feel some ownership now in a lot of cases. Achieving more equity of access and qualifications of people in the classroom and the payment goes along with that. So I think those are things we can lay out clear policy direction on in the bill. And then I think the best we can do on the financing side of it is really to ask for more information and for that information to be included in whatever comes out of the additional work that is being done now. We always have fun to do.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office, Revenue Team)]: It's like the most fun place.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Thought we were the fun place. Other questions for JFO? It's a shift. Mean, you've actually helped us to think about

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, no, I think it's very helpful.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: About thinking about really that we try to think that we have opinions about things. They're not always they need to be based on sound judgment of an understanding of the underlying impacts. And I think we do not know enough about the underlying impacts in order to make a strong recommendation one way or the other. But we do have enough information to say these are the things that we want to achieve and can lay those out. And I'm sure that Ways and Means will help us with the wording about how to achieve them. Right. Do you have any other questions for us or what are things that you were hoping that we would address?

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: Not for my end? At this time. Thanks.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Well, this is going be the only time for us.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: You'll have come

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: with other committees too.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes. That's what we send.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: It's actually so this is breaking news. So this is actually we're going to be submitting legislative language, but as an attachment to a memo. So instead of which because this is from the It's all tongue tied because this has changed so many times, let me tell you, in the span of this session. So originally, we were starting and everything was going to be added onto this. And so now, Ed Committee has got a committee bill going. And that actually makes more sense for our stuff to be added into their bill and not us for you to lead on education. So our stuff is going to be added into their bill, and then they're going to do whatever they do with our recommendations. But we are giving them legislative language. So all the stuff that you've done is stuff that we need to attach to our memo. But it's not going to be a committee bill. And the good part about that is when they include it in their bill, we will have an opportunity once again to see the bill because we will need to vote on that because our part of the jurisdiction of that bill. So it will make another visit back here. That's actually the good part about doing it this way.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: Yeah. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: we get, I know, it's unusual, two bites at the apple. Okay, any other questions? I think that we've done what we needed to do on the JFO side of things. Thank you, really. Don't know if it was sort of having you in the room helped us to kind of But get to a place of better it definitely helped trying to figure this out. Okay. So on the language side of things, we have a couple more minutes before we have to go back down. I'd like to talk a little bit about the discussion that we had this morning with the folks from the education community around five year olds. I felt like they actually presented a really valid thought. And so just to refresh people's memories, we've gone back and forth about five years of age but is not yet enrolled, or five years of age but is eligible to be enrolled or something like that. It's dark green. I can't really read through it. But the notion is they believe the testimony they provided this morning is that we should limit it to those five year olds who are not eligible to be enrolled. So that five year olds who are eligible to be enrolled should be going to kindergarten and then Less. Right. Then go ahead. Yeah. Sounds good. The ranking member had an idea of which

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: To and include, unless the team, the education team and the parents in discussing best outcomes recommends the child stay in treatment I heard that. In which case they would be would

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: have that option. Right, right.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So there's a valve there for kids where the right outcome is to stay another year to pre K. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: what do people think about that? I feel like that sort of threads the needle we were trying to No, I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think that's good. Some

[Katie McNabb (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: kids aren't ready.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Well, and the thing that they pointed out was that in moving, because we're not gonna be able to go at least at the current time beyond ten hours, it will enable that child, if they still have some developmental milestones to reach, they'll actually have more time in school in kindergarten than they will with pre K. So that will provide them more professional education opportunity,

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: which

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I thought was a really good point.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I guess my only thought or question is where the ultimate decision making lies. There's this consultative process, if you will, between school, folks from the schools and parents, where does it rest? I lean towards, I was would a little uncomfortable with the direction we're going, I'm glad we're coming back to eligible for, I would leave it with the school profession.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I would also want to see it collaborative, but it would ultimately the education team that Because they're the one who's saying, who's identifying whether or not that child is ready. I mean, are some kids who it's developmental aspects that would not benefit from a longer day in school, for instance, and who might therefore be right to stay in pre K even though the advantage is that they can't deal with a longer

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So what I'm hearing people at least throw out there is that four years of age or is five years of age is not yet eligible to enroll in kindergarten. And then I'm not sure how the unless determined by the school district. Might need to be

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: a separate sentence. Right. This shall not apply if the five year eligibility shall not apply.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Do know

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: what we're getting

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: at that?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think we would just have it provided however that can work our burning magic. I do think that the term education team is not a term that we would have like It's not a jargon. Yeah, so I think school districts. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Okay, so that's one, two, three, maybe four times on that one.

[Katie McNabb (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: School district personnel because a school district isn't a person.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Actually, it is in law. Law, it But we

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: don't want to include that there has to be in court consultation with the parents that needs to be

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I think, yeah, the idea. Okay. So the other thing that we heard and Ray got a little bit more information on the double fingerprinting. Oh, Yeah. Think that we'll have Ray share that information. She asked CDD about this and they came back with a longer answer, which of course wasn't necessarily about fingerprinting. Was about the whole back. The background check is more than fingerprinting, what you were asking about earlier. There's multiple aspects to the background check that includes reference checking. There's a whole bunch of different things. And the CDD requirements are more strict than the AOE requirements. And so right now, I don't understand. One or the other, it seems as though that we would go with the ones that are prevailing, which they have to have a CDD license. Right. The straight one. Yes. Right. And so it seems as though we could come up with language that says the school district's not required to do a background check if it has already been completed. Or they can accept it as field rather than you don't have to do it. Yeah,

[Katie McNabb (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can't

[Unidentified Committee Member]: share information. This is where I run into

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: No, they can accept. Person can CDB can verify that a background check has been completed. They can accept that as having met the qualifications if CDC has said- So they've cleared somebody. We've cleared them, okay, we'll accept that. No, they can't share any of the information because they're not, only employers can ask for that information. Although CBD is not the employer and they're the ones asking for the information for all the childcare ones. I don't really understand that.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: That's kind of a slippery slope because if they've been cleared, say, two years ago, there should be some type of time frame

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, we would have to have that. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Implemented. Within the letter.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yeah. They

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: last year, what is

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: the next?

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Well, that currently exists for teachers. I mean, my wife, over the course of her twenty five years career, has had her fingerprints fingerprints done more than once, but it's not annually or every two years. It's like five or eight years.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah, well, what I'm getting at is somebody is being cleared on that thing, but then applies, and then they say, oh, okay, we'll accept this. Well, when was it done?

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

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's right. You need to know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So if there is some way to work language in that essentially says you only have to go through one background check process.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: The background check has

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: been verified within the last year.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Yeah, think that this needs some assistance from CDD.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I heard report when you passed X-seventy six filed, that's where you put some fingerprints.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Yes, we did. And they came back with, Oh, this seems like an unsolvable problem. But I understand CBE has actually done quite a bit of work this fall on this issue. And so maybe what we should do is to have a placeholder. That might not be the exact language, but that what we're trying to do is to avoid it's happening at the same time. There's no reason for people to have to have their fingerprints done twice. And if we have a background check that has more elements, and we're talking about very young children, go with that. That's what I would say. And if there's a way to do that and maybe ask AOE and CDD to come up with that language. This does not seem like an insurmountable problem.

[Katie McNabb (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But people who mean licensed teachers, licensed under 2016?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Well, yes, because they're gonna be All licensed All licensed to benchmark. Yeah, but not right away.

[Katie McNabb (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's why I'm asking, when does it take effect and who does it apply to?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: CDD, as I understand it, when they pre qualify, the people in the classroom have to go through their background check process. And then in the public system, also have to go through the school. And I don't know what's in education law versus local school district policy.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: My

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Internet is breaking.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Background checks are required for teachers by their employer.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: Trying to think from memory because my internet is not working.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Let's propose this. So let's propose this that we put someplace in here that for pre K teachers in the public school it doesn't impact the private. This is only public. It has to go through it twice. So let's at least give them language that we'll propose and then they can shoot holes in it. So, language that says that for public education teachers, if they have gone through the private or the CDD background check process that They'll be deemed shall be deemed to have met the requirements for background check for school district.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Wouldn't this also be in the private setting as we move towards for those teachers who already are AOE licensed and as we move towards more of them being AOE licensed?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But they're not gonna be in school.

[Julia Richter (Joint Fiscal Office, Education Finance Analyst)]: The

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

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: think it may.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: If we talk about, if we say licensed pre K teachers who have gone through this, and we don't say public or private. Applies to both. Okay. Yeah. No.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office, Revenue Team)]: I'm just

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: saying, timing wise, we're being asked to be down on the floor. We're having to play committee musical chairs. Other committees are needed to do the same thing.