Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Good afternoon. Welcome to House Human Services. This afternoon, we are taking up two bills, S206, the licensure of early childhood educators, and S243, an act relating to distributing funds to the Vermont Language Justice Project. And that's the one we'll do first. You might recall we took testimony from a couple of folks last week on this bill. And today, we have Daniel McGill from the Office of Racial Equity here. So welcome, Daniel. Thank you for being here.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: So, I'm happy to be here.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so, we are interested in learning a little bit more about the relationship of the Language Justice Project with the Office of Racial Equity. And so we understand that they have worked collaboratively with you. And as you know, the bill has $150,000 in it specifically for the health department. And we're just wanting to know more about how you worked at the Office of Racial Equity with the Language Justice Project.

[Daniel McGill (Office of Racial Equity)]: Sure. So we don't necessarily work directly with VLJP. The the capacity that I know that they work with the state, they have separate agreements with other agencies and departments such as the Department of Labor or Department of Corrections. They're not listed listed as one of the retainer contracts that the state already has for translation and interpretation. And I think one of the reasons why BLJP sticks out is because the contracts that we have, I believe, are only for live interpretation of trans you know, to for other other languages, whereas VLJP does recorded videos of vital information in several different languages. So that's why I think those separate agreements exist. And the way those that work gets paid for is through the language access fund that the state has. And our role at the Office of Racial Equity is to help manage that fund to make sure that it's only used for the translation and interpretation of vital information.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And what is considered vital information?

[Daniel McGill (Office of Racial Equity)]: So there's three questions that we typically ask, and I believe we got this from the federal government. So one of them is, could a member of the public access participate in this program, service, or activity if they are unable to complete and or understand the information in this document? If the answer is no, then it's considered to be vital. The second question is, could a member of the public be terminated from this program, service, or activity if they are unable to complete and or understand the information in this document. If the answer is yes, it's considered to be vital. And then the last question, which a lot of the things that get translated fall into this category. Could a member of the public suffer significant financial, physical, or other harm if they are unable to complete and or understand the information in this document? If the answer is yes, it's considered vital.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. That's helpful. So are the resources that ORE has, are they federal resources or state resources or some combination?

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: State.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: State resources. Okay.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I'm

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: trying to so let me just use an example. So recently, the legislature passed a bill, age five forty five, that had to do with public access to immunizations in the state of Vermont, given the changing landscape at the federal level. Now, the health department, I haven't checked their website yet, to be honest with you. But let's just presume that they have not translated that information into the various languages of people who live in the state of Vermont. If they wanted to, are they able to access through you those resources that you speak of in order to hire the racial justice project to do it?

[Daniel McGill (Office of Racial Equity)]: This the Vermont Department of Health that you're asking about?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yes.

[Daniel McGill (Office of Racial Equity)]: We do have a memorandum of understanding in place with BDH. So yes, they would be able to access these funds for that vital information to be translated.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So that's and would they be able to access those funds for any one of those three questions that you just said?

[Daniel McGill (Office of Racial Equity)]: It sounds like to me that it would fall under the third question since it deals with immunization. So without that information, they could possibly suffer some kind of physical harm.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. I mean, they theoretically also might have things that they post about general access to, I'll just say, let's say substance use treatment that in their division that deals with substance use treatment, people wouldn't know how to access that unless they were able to access that information in their specific language. So is that yeah. I'm sorry. You you kind of cut out a little bit. Correct. Okay. Okay. Yes. Go ahead. I me because I'm a fiscal money person. What percentage of your budget goes to payroll and overhead? And what percentage goes to the people that you serve?

[Daniel McGill (Office of Racial Equity)]: I don't have that information at my fingertips. But to give you an example, our language access fund that we manage for the state was originally 2.3. So it's significantly more than, like, our combined salaries. There's only seven of us currently in this office of racial equity.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: At some point. So we're representative Steady, this this funding doesn't have anything to do with that. We're not paying any staff with this I've got this one. Okay. Alright. You can also I would like a spreadsheet, please. Thank you. I'm just letting you you can also check-in down with appropriations because they probably have that information. Because they they look at all the state offices down in appropriations. Other questions for this witness? So you've already gotten 2,300,000?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah. So this would

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be above and beyond that? Yes. They have no. This would not be above that. This is we're talking about is money that the Office of Racial Equity has already been appropriated that is used to do exactly what we're talking about. Interpret vital documents or And access to so what we are trying to ascertain through this bill, the S-two 43, is whether, in fact, the health department needs that $150,000 or do they have access to the funds that the Office of Racial Equity already has? And what I believe that we are learning is that they have access and they in fact have an MOU with the Office of Racial Equity to access those funds in order to translate and they can utilize the racial justice project in doing that. Is

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: that clear?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, I just don't understand why

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: they need the other 150,000. Well, that's okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. That's that's what we're trying to learn is whether they do or not. Yeah. That's yeah. Go ahead.

[Daniel McGill (Office of Racial Equity)]: There might be a a missing piece, and that would be whether or not they already have an agreement with BLJP between BDH and BLJP. The MOU that's in place now is just an agreement between our office and BDH.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, I understood that from your testimony, Danny. What we're trying to figure out really is it seems like the Department of Health is not utilized the language justice project as much as they did in the past when they lost the federal funding that they had a direct contract with. And the Language Justice Project, I think, honestly needs some assistance in understanding how they get on that contractor list where you don't have to go through all of the putting it out to bid and all that kind of stuff. Because I don't believe that they are on that list. And I think that if we can somehow get them some assistance to understand that process, I think that, frankly, all of this all these issues would be solved.

[Daniel McGill (Office of Racial Equity)]: And, actually, those efforts are underway right now. I believe one of our procurement specialists is crafting an RFP that VLJP can respond to. So we're aware.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And would that help them be placed on this I don't know. I can't remember what the name of that list is. But It's just a state contractor list.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Where you don't have to do the RFPs. I think it's obvious that they would be a sole source provider. I'm not sure how many other organizations in the state can translate into 30 different and do that really in very short order.

[Daniel McGill (Office of Racial Equity)]: Yeah. That's what I understand to be true is that they're in a unique position to translate into several languages very quickly. I think there are maybe some other organizations that are attempting to do the same, but not with the speed that we've seen with BLJP so far.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah. If I can just add, thank

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: you so much, Danny, for your flexibility and being able to testify. I'll just add that last week, we also heard from the Division of Emergency Management that they're also They have utilized the Vermont Language Justice Project and are working with them to ensure that they're added to the state contractor list. And once they're on that list, any state agency can utilize them without the procurement process.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm not sure I actually heard that from

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: It says in the testimony, we're currently working with

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: the producer to create a B,

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: and then working with producers to

[Susan Titterton (Project Coordinator, VTAEYC)]: help them be included in the state

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: contract with us,

[Susan Titterton (Project Coordinator, VTAEYC)]: So they can be used more quickly in a disaster.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That would be good. So, Danny, is this an appropriation that's made every year? Or is this amount supposed to last you for a specified period of time?

[Daniel McGill (Office of Racial Equity)]: As far as I know from my director, there is no expiration date on the what we're calling the one time fund, the 2.3 mil. And as of March 31 year, there's 1,800,000 left in that fund. We also have 700,000 per year set aside, which is specifically for the maintenance of any existing vital documents or information that has already been translated. If there's new information or there's a new document or a document that needs to be updated, then, of course, the translations of those need need to be updated as well. And that's what we're calling the base fund.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Alrighty. That's very helpful. Any other questions for Danny on this? Okay. Great. Thank you so much for being here, Danny. We appreciate it, and it's nice to meet you.

[Daniel McGill (Office of Racial Equity)]: Nice to meet you. Sorry I couldn't be there in person.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's okay. Thanks so much. Thank you. Okay. So, we have a few minutes. I'm gonna take advantage of that few minutes, and we're going to review the s two ninety two thirty nine, excuse me, amendment, which I'm going to forward to you right now. There was an amendment.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: It's on your web page.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, it's on the web page too. Okay, I'm forwarding you to an email and it is on our web page. So after the bill left our committee, it went to appropriations. Appropriations was contacted by the agency of education, asking them to, they asked to be included in the work group. We already had 13 people in the work group or 13 entities represented, and we did have school districts represented through the Principals Association. So I suggested to the chair of appropriations that they add the agency of education to the list of entities that are consulted with. So you can see that they have been added. And also, there just was overlooked. We had moved the school counselor from the top to the bottom. And so the consult version now says instead of just a school counselor, it says the Vermont School Counselors Association. So that it's not just one particular person. And that's it for the amendment. And otherwise, it passed out of their committee, I think, unanimously. Yes, I'm pretty sure I got a text saying it was unanimous. I actually think

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I'm shy, something about her. That's what I remember.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so are there any questions about that? Okay, could I see by a show of hands those people? This is just, yes, go ahead.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Sorry, I was looking for the difference between what we passed and the language about the attorney general and school counselor. I thought it actually looked

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. Look at my email. It's actually Michelle's email that she sent to me. Points out the HHS version and then house appropriations. Everybody see it?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Mhmm. Yeah. Okay. Gotcha.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Alright. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yep. No problem. Okay. Could I see by a show of hands, this is just a straw poll, Those in support of the House Appropriations Committee amendment.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: No.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Apologies, Chair. One question. So this section in our HHS version from Michelle, the fact that that is crossed off, that doesn't mean that we're approving that. I see. Because we're just retaining the Vermont School Counselors Association. That's fine. Okay. I'm sorry. That's okay. It seems be better to wrap my head around. Yeah. Okay. Then yes, of course.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. We didn't delete them. We just it wouldn't Yeah. All of those in the working in the that they will consult with our organization. So this it was

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: just a carryover because they used to be at the top. Okay. Sounds good.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, is everybody voting again? I

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: didn't know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, I didn't know we were doing it again either. So we're all good. So it's nine zero two on the straw poll approving that. Okay. And just for folks to be aware, it'll be the House Human Services show tomorrow on the floor. So S-two43 and S-one57 will both be up for action tomorrow on the House floor. 239. Yes, sorry, 239. That's the one I read that number, 157. Thank you. Okay, now we're going to change topics. We're moving on to the beginnings of our work on S206, an act relating to licensure of early childhood educators by the Office of Professional Regulation. So I thought it's only good that we start off with the Office of Professional Regulation. So we have the deputy secretary and then we have the director of OPR. So there's another chair there if you want to grab it. If you're both at same time, that would be great.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Good morning and good afternoon.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Good afternoon. Yeah.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: For

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: the record, my name is Lauren Hibbard. I'm Deputy Secretary of State and have with me

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: I'm Jen Cohen. I'm the Director of the Office of Professional Regulation.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Thank you so much for having us. JENNIFER Welcome. Thank you.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Did you want to

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yeah, why don't we get right to that? I'm going to talk about this a little later in our testimony. But I'm going to hand out this is our sunrise report that we did. We have the responsibility of doing a sunrise report. I'll talk more about that process a little later.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You submitting all these links to them at least in report.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: We will make sure to put with this cover graph on the testimony that we are testifying to And we I think the summarize might already be linked to your site. Did you or maybe it's not on today's.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Might be in the reports.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: It might be. The report is linked in our testimony today.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: We may be Okay.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: So one more.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: One more. Could you give one for Representative Donahue?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, we will

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: have one here. You have one?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah, I think this is yeah. Yeah, that's it. Good.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Perfect. Great. So I'm going to turn it over to Jen to talk Just

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: one moment. Linda, can you check and see? It should be It's not posted today. Will you check with Megan to see if she received it? Yes.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Thank you. Sorry. It's not a little correct. The thing that is different about this one that will be somewhat difficult to do digitally is this hard copy has tabs, and then the graph has this graph is a bucket of topics with the tab number and then the corresponding page number. So if you wanted to look at, say, what harm did we find to children, you would know to go to tab seven and eight, and that's pages 26 through 32. But we'll make sure to provide that graph, and that may be just enough. But the tabs, I'll have to think about that, how we do that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, no, I appreciate the tabs, and people will have to find their way through. But anything that we receive here, we want to make

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: sure is on our website. We'll make sure we provide both of those things in one packet. Okay. Great. So thank you for the opportunity to testify on S206, an act relating to the licensure of early childhood to educators by OPR. Obviously, we are very much in support of this bill, and it is very much in line with the findings from our Sunrise report, which we'll discuss here in a few minutes. So for over a decade, Vermont has studied the mixed delivery early education system serving our children ages zero to five and made strides to increase the quality of and access to early education. The first 10 pages of this early childhood education sunrise report goes through that history in detail. So I'm not going to do that here today. But just a few highlights. For example, we've learned through studies commissioned by Act 58 in 2015 and ACT 45 in 2021, as well as reports from the Child Development Division of DCF and Building Bright Futures, that all foundations for a child's learning start in infancy, that the brain's architecture is being formed through millions of neural connections happening every second in a young child's brain, that over 90% of brain development occurs by the age of five, that at 18 of age, disparities in vocabulary begin to appear for children who are not exposed to high quality care. That high quality early care and education for infants, toddlers, and young children lay the groundwork for them to have healthy lives with strong foundations in language, reasoning, math, and emotional regulation. In other words, we've learned in the last decades that supporting Vermont's youngest citizens from cradle to career does not start with five year olds or even three year olds, That critical support starts with high quality early education in infancy.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: So this bill really creates the infrastructure to recognize early childhood educators as an occupation that is licensed by the state of Vermont. The individuals that would be regulated here, so it's individual regulation as opposed to business registration and regulation, which is currently happening at CDD, would be early educators who work with children from zero to eight in that period of early childhood and in the private setting that is regulated by CDD. This bill creates a stackable credential, which means that if there's an early childhood educator one, two, and three, these credentials are intended to an individual, be able to progress up those licensure types. And you'll hear us talk about all of the pathways that we've created throughout the legislative process. We've received a lot of feedback from folks, and we have variances and pathways for almost everybody in the workforce. Now, primary goal and the big thing that we've heard on the Senate side was we don't want to lose anybody from the current workforce. We also don't want to lose anybody from the current workforce. We've really heard that feedback and incorporated those into the variances. So we'll talk about those things. But broadly, this bill does increase qualifications over a period of time. And that eight year transitional period, which you'll hear more about, is designed to bring everybody up to the qualifications that will be required and create permanently pathways for people to obtain those qualifications. There will be a legacy pathway for those family, child care, home providers who don't want to transition to an ECE license. So that's the folks that are currently providing care to three or more families in their home. There'll be a legacy pathway that will be open to them through the end of the transition period. So it's about a year after they'll be start licensing folks. And they will be able to have a legacy pathway, meaning they don't have to get any further credentials for the duration of time. As long as they hold that license, if they hold it until 2050, they will not have to obtain additional credentials. And then there's multitudes of variances that would put the other folks into the pathway. Again, this is really so that we don't lose a single person working in child care right now. That's the biggest criticism of the bill that we've heard, and we've tried to address it in as many ways as possible.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We had a walkthrough of the bill last week, and one of the things that became a little confusing, and I was told that you might have a fancy little chart that shows all the variances and the timeframes and all of that kind of thing.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yeah. I'll have Jen hand that out. But we're going to talk about this a little bit later. I have

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: some That's fine. I just wanted to ask I was told if you might have that.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: And I just want to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: go show it to you.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: And Jen we'll pass it out. But we'll get to it. But there's the current roles and minimum qualifications and then what will be. So there's two charts. One is what's required now, and one is what will be. So you can compare and contrast and see those variances. And honestly, this is the most confusing and complex part of this bill. I think the concepts are easy ish. I think people want there to be quality early childhood education. I think people want broadly for early childhood educators to be educated and accountable for their work. What is complicated is how do we get there? How do we create that? And so we have, Jen and I have been talking about it, talking about different ways to present it. We've tried about a million ways. The beautiful thing about the legislative process is you have a lot of opportunities to keep driving. So this is our current best effort, and we'll take feedback if it doesn't make sense and go from there. So importantly, as you look at these graphs, when we get there, is that there are some key exemptions. The trusted care providers, those are people who are providing care in their home for two or fewer families. So that is a large part of our child care fabric in Vermont that are currently not regulated by CDD. This bill does not change that fact. It does not change the fact that they will continue to not be regulated by CDD. They will not be regulated by OPR. It also exempts active AOE licensed educators, which in other committees we've had to talk about a lot, this committee knows more than others about that. But AOE, early childhood educators, are the folks who are authorized to provide universal pre K. They will not have to get a duplicate license from our office. They'll be able to practice in the private child care setting with their AOE license. And it exempts after school program staff and other staff in programs that are exempted by CDD. Essentially, if you are a program that's regulated by CDD and you have staff in it, there are people in your facility that will need to be licensed by OPR. There are also people that will not need to be licensed by OPR. There's trainees, there's aids. They will not be regulated under this bill. It's really the teachers, the lead teachers in those CBD regulated facilities. So you have in front of you the Sunrise report, and I'm not going to go too in-depth because I think we have talked to you last session about this report. I really hope that the graph helps you determine which sections you care the most about and go take a look at it. But in broad strokes, Chapter 57 of Title 26 requires the Office of Professional Regulation to look at a new proposed area of occupational licensure to determine, is there harm? And if we find that there is harm or potential for harm, then we need to do an assessment of what is the minimum necessary that the government needs to set up around this occupation to ensure that harm doesn't occur? Or if it does, that we can remove that person from the marketplace? So I saw that there was a question.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's the purpose of a sunrise report. Because not everybody is familiar with the term sunrise reports. That is the purpose. Thank you. Representative Bishop.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Thank you. I just want to make sure I understood correctly what you said a moment ago. Maybe I misheard you that it's intended to regulate lead teachers, But isn't an ECE one a support role and that would be licensed?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yes, that's an assistant. It's lead teachers and assistant teachers, but not trainees and aids. But an assistant teacher can be alone with children too. But the trainees and aides are who we are not regulating.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Gotcha. Thank you.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Sorry. Go ahead,

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I'm neutral. That's, of course. So when you talk about harm, so the example you just gave about which adults can be with children or not, that's an example of harm or potential harm.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Potential harm, yeah. But that was not one of the harms. I mean, there's more risk of harm because people are alone with children. But the harms, which I'll turn it over to Jen to talk about, but the harms are really more what can happen if there's poor care provided, given that individual's unique access to young children without supervision. I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: see. I do want committee members to know that we're also going to be hearing from the child development division. And they'll review what I guess I don't want people to leave with the impression that people are in harm's way at the current time right now.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Oh, sorry. That's right.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: We're not looking for that. I just want to understand.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, I know. But just because some of the language that we're using. So we are going be hearing from CDC about what are the current procedures and what are the background checks? What are all of the things that are in place now to protect children? Yeah.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: And just to your point, Madam Chair, I think what we found was because right now this industry, this whole workforce is regulated at the facility level and not at the individual level, that there is potential for harm and that there is harm that's occurring. Not that CBD is not regulating the space completely well. CBD is regulating the space very well in the parameters that they've been given. But this is similar to if you think about the hospital system and all of the licensees that work in a hospital system, hospitals are regulated in this state and are overseen. And the individuals who work in the hospitals are overseen and licensed by the state. So these two concepts can work and can dovetail together really well. And there's a difference between individual licensure and facility licensure.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Yeah, and one of the things that we do point out in our Sunrise report is that, like Lauren just said, CDD is doing a great job of regulating at the facility level, but there are gaps in the current system. We talk about those gaps. We'll talk about them today. And that's not because we think CDD is doing anything wrong because they're not. It's just system design. So we think we can fill those gaps. Great. So on our testimony on page three, do y'all have our testimony?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. I don't think it was sent to us. Okay.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Okay. I'm going to send a message and get it sent to you. All done. Right. Can you send it to Linda Lehman? Yeah. He's got it, but I'll just make sure.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: So we have detailed findings relating to harm in our sunrise, and I'm just going to give you a brief overview of those. So first of all, I think we all know this and especially you in this committee. Early education is not babysitting. Quality early education beginning at birth goes beyond those basic health and safety needs and requirements. It includes warm, responsive relationships with educators, stimulating and developmentally appropriate curriculum with ongoing activities that are enriching for children and their developing brains. These features are what enhance children's cognitive and social emotional development, and it lays the foundation for all of the learning that they're going to have in their lives. And it lays important health foundations, which we're going to talk about. Quality early education is skilled, work that requires a sensitive and responsive caregiving relationship between the educator and the child on a consistent basis. And that's one of the things that we see in a workforce area where there's a lot of turnover is a lack of consistency does cause harm to children because they have lots of different caregivers and there's not that consistency in staff. Quality early education includes age appropriate instruction, intentional use of enriching play, use of curriculum by prepared educators who adhere to quality practices, standards and regulations that are established from within the profession. And those standards are established by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. They are standards that are used in public schools and in pre K. So that's what brings quality to programs is individual educators who are trained, have professional preparation and who are familiar with those standards and who adhere to those standards. These professional skills for early care educators help children make gains in cognitive and academic areas such as literacy, language, mathematics, social skills, self regulation and behavior. Furthermore, infants and toddlers who have continuity of care in early care and education programs, meaning the same care provider throughout the days or weeks and from year to year, those children demonstrate better long range socio emotional development and self confidence derived from consistent, trusting, nurturing relationships that they're building over time with those caregivers. The long term positive impacts of children participating in high quality early education include better physical health, increased higher education, higher earnings, and lower involvement in crime. So just as high quality early care and education provides strong lifelong foundations for learning and physical and mental health and emotional stability, low quality child care provided by unprepared and or minimally trained individuals has lasting impacts on children into adulthood. In such environments, children are more likely to have adverse early experiences. We talked about that a little bit last year. Those create a weak developmental foundation that compromises a child's brain architecture, resulting in enduring impacts. When the brain's developing rapidly during early years of life, it's very sensitive to the disruptive impacts and effects of elevated stress activation, which releases a flood of hormones, immune responses, neurotransmitters. All of those things that happen when young children are persistently exposed to stressors create overactive fight or flight responses, and that leads to the sympathetic nervous system consistently sending stress signals back to the brain. That signals other developing systems in the body. And all of that excessive stress feedback on a prolonged basis leads to adaptations in your physiological system and in your brain. So those adaptations impact cardiovascular function, immune responses, metabolic regulation. Those suboptimal development impacts in growing babies and young children results in increased lifelong risk for stress associated illness and disease such as diabetes, immune disorders, cardiovascular disease, mental health problems, and addiction. Furthermore, children who don't have access to high quality early education have a twenty five percent higher rate of dropping out of school. And that statistic is very important here in Vermont, where high school graduation rates have declined in the last decade. The research that we did in connection with our Sunrise report showed that Vermont used to have a graduation rate of 90% or higher of its high school students, and that that number dropped to 83% in 2022 and 2023. Sustained access to quality early education with a stable workforce will improve developmental and health outcomes for children and reduce poor short and long term outcomes. So to boil this down, in our Sunrise report, we found that there are two types of recognizable public harm, and that those types of harm warrant professional regulation at the individual level. And those types of harm are physical and emotional abuse, maltreatment, and neglect of children, which does happen. And two, poor educational, developmental, and health outcomes for children caused by low quality care and lack of access to high quality early education. So to break those down a little further, we know that young children ages zero to eight and zero to five in particular are our most vulnerable population. They may be subject to physical abuse, maltreatment, neglect. And that happens sometimes by staff at regulated childcare facilities or homes. It happens outside of those settings, of course, too. We noted some recent examples in our report. There was a Rutland childcare facility that was shut down in October 2025 after CDD determined that physical abuse of children occurred, as well as staff cursing and making threats of harm to children. There was a Hyde Park child care facility that closed in October 2025 also after CDD determined maltreatment of children, including the covering of faces of sleeping infants. And then in 2023, a very town child care facility was shut down after CDD found many violations, including that young children were shaken, that an infant was tossed onto a changing table hitting the baby's head, pinching a baby's nose to make it drink out of a bottle, denying infant sleep time, cursing at children, and waiting significant time before attending to crying infants. News reports of the abuse at that facility noted that the perpetrator, who was the director of the infant room at the facility, had been in childcare for two decades.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So let me ask you a question. So what you propose is that your certification process is going to address some of those issues. I really am trying to figure out how the training and qualifications that CBD requires and how that So I'll be interested in maybe as you talk about how these things kind of link together. And I heard you say multiple times now about the, you're doing it at the individual level, the practitioner level, and they do it at the program level, but they also look at the individuals who are in the program.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Yes, they do.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All of those things that you just said were bad. Weren't supposed to happen to any children. Of course. I also see that CDD did the job in eliminating the threat essentially. I'm trying to understand if what you're saying is that potentially that could have been avoided if people had this process to go through.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: That's right. So we're saying two things. One, individual licensure. Yes, CDD does require individuals to go through some training, and we have charts that show you what the minimum levels of training are. This, of course, is going to increase those minimal levels of training. And so we think that just the increase in training in and of itself will help reduce those harms. And also, the fact that conduct occurs on the individual level. And when individuals aren't held accountable for that conduct through a publicly transparent process, number one, and number two, a process that can't be accessed by parents and families to know when someone has had those types of problems in their professional career so that they can make a choice about who they want caring for their children, that presents a risk of harm to children as well. Families need to be able to have the ability to know when individual educators have engaged in this kind of conduct and to be able to make a different choice. Individual regulation through Go ahead, Representative Jim.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Thank you. Taking that point, the individual rather than the quality argument in the assessment, wouldn't there be a way at something short of full licensure, either the registration or certification steps that are available as an option, if all childcare workers were required to be registered or certified, that if there was individual wrongdoing, they could lose registration or certification. Would that not provide a similar level of protection?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Do you want to speak to

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: the three types of licensure? So

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: licensure, we talk about this statewide. Licensure includes registration, certification, and licensure, which is confusing because we're using the same word in two different ways. I just want to really acknowledge that. So registration means no qualifications and everyone who's in the field needs to have it. So registration possibly could because it would mean we could take the registration away. But the standards of care are harder to establish if there's a registration because there's not a common understanding of what is required. Certification is voluntary, meaning if you want to pursue the certification, you can, but you don't have to. And the most common example of certification in this state is a dietitian. I'd like to say anybody can give you diet advice and they do, but only certain people can say they're a registered and certified dietitian by the state of Vermont. And then the licensure requires qualifications, meaning everybody who wants to do this activity needs qualifications. And that means that if we have standards of care and if the standards of care are violated, we can remove or restrict or warn somebody's behavior.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: And that's not available at the certification?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: That is available at the certification, but the certification is voluntary. It's not mandatory. And so the piece that we really found was that in this space, individuals, and they already do, as we've been talking about, have requirements. They already have requirements at CBD. What this will do is take that function that CBD is currently doing out of CBD and put it instead of in CBD at the individual level at OPR. And then CDD will have to say, if you want to have this facility, you need to have an ECE one, an ECE two, and an ECE three. And then they'll look at our credentials and the people that are employed and say, Okay, these people have those credentials from OPR. So it'll take time, and there will be a transition period. We worked really closely with CDD in this proposal. There will be time where CDD and OPR are very overlapped, and then it will start to will always overlap, will never be not overlapping because those functions that the individual qualifications that are in CDD right now will come out of CDD, out of their rules, and then their rules will start to say, if you want to be a facility that has 25 kids, you need these credentials employed there. And then facility directors will look to see and make sure that they can meet the CDD requirements by having the required staffing at the individual level with licenses from OPR. So in one telling right now, even though I guess if I could just make one more point, right now there are mandatory requirements, mandatory qualifications on this field, but without any benefit of licensure, meaning the individual doesn't have the benefit of licensure and the public doesn't have the benefit of licensure right now. But the requirements are there. This bill is elevating those requirements, but there are mandatory requirements right now for this workforce that they must meet. But they don't have the professional validation of having a license and the public doesn't have the protection of individual licensure, which means if somebody does something wrong, I'm just going to say if somebody does something wrong at one of these facilities, CDD can shut down the facility and to an extent that can limit the people who are working there from moving to another facility. But there's no public transparency on who did the conduct. There can be a criminal referral, but we are repeatedly seeing those referrals are not being prosecuted. And then the next family who's hiring a nanny or the next family who wants to go to a trusted care provider. Say I worked at that Rutland childcare facility, that facility was shut down. I could open and provide care in my home for two or fewer families without any transparency to the public that I had participated in that Rutland facility. So there's many layers of transparency that this is providing that is an improvement upon the current system in CDD. And long term, one of OPR's goals was to reduce the administrative burden on whole for child care facilities, making it simpler to be able to say, do you have the credentials or not, as opposed to having to go and do that analysis themselves. And I think long term, it will make it simpler for CBD as well. It'll take some time, but we would get there.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: And we love the questions. So please feel free to interrupt at any time because this is a great conversation. Who initiated the request? The Vermont AUIC filed an application with the Office of Professional Regulation in May '4. And that application, I believe it was on our website. I'm not sure it still is. But our application process for a sunrise review requires an applicant to provide us with specific information about the field and the workforce and what are all the reasons that they view, what are the harms, what are the benefits, that sort of thing, what are the costs. So they submitted to us a very in-depth application and then we researched and did our own independent research for several months and then completed our Sunrise report in January '25.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Chris, we do have the testimony on our website now. Okay, great. Sorry, we had emailed it to a different person. Sorry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, and our regular person is on vacation. So that may have gone to her.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I believe that's what happened. And that's a well deserved vacation. But I'm sorry that we fell through that.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: So I'm on page five at the bottom individual regulation through OPR with respect to this first type of harm will allow the removal of the individual bad actors from the marketplace through a well established disciplinary process that includes investigation, prosecution, adjudication. It'll permit families and the public to know that education and training of regulated individuals, as well as regulated individuals have been disciplined for violating conduct or practice standards. And we have a public licensee lookup on our website. So that enables you to be able to either download a roster of everybody with a certain credential, or it enables you to look up specific people and see what credential they have. Yes. Yeah, go ahead, representative.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Who pays for all this? Does private daycares have to come up with this money, which would raise the cost to people sending their kids

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: to that daycare? So licensure fees are paid by the individual, and you'll see that the maximum, I think, renewal fee in connection with this bill is $2.75. And that's for an ECE three. We renew every two years. So when you map that out, I think that's about $11 a month for licensure. And then OPR is a special fund agency. So each profession pays for itself through those licensing fees. Individual that wants to work at the daycare pays for their own? For their own individual license. That's right.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: So the daycare wouldn't have to pay for anything.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: They wouldn't have to. They could, but

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: they wouldn't have to. I just worry because people already can't afford daycare unless you get it free through the state.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There is a fiscal note that goes with this representative study. Oh,

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: there is.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, there is.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I'll look it up. Thanks.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: The second type of harm that we found was a lack of provider competency in early childhood education standards results in lower quality child care outcomes that impact young children into adulthood. Studies have shown that young children who do not have access to high quality early education have that twenty five percent higher rate of dropping out of school. Special needs and early indicators of learning disabilities are not assessed in lower quality childcare environments. And that means children go without early interventions that could reduce the long term impacts. And infants, toddlers, young children who don't have access to high quality early education have higher rates of law enforcement involvement, mental health issues, and addiction. So individual regulation of OPR will ensure education and training based on the science of brain development, establish the National Association of the Education of Young Children's Standards as the standards of practice in early education across settings, which brings them in line with public school and public pre K. It'll require competency in observing, documenting, and assessing children's learning and development, and it will require competency in curriculum development and implementation so that children receive that high quality education that promotes cognitive, linguistic, social and emotional growth, which gives them a great boost so that when they enter public school and public programs, they're ready.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We've just spent quite a bit of time on kindergarten readiness and pre K. So are you familiar with Vermont's already very high results in that area that we're doing quite well without all of this?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah. Yeah,

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I was gonna ask the same question I'm trying to wrap my head around. The assessment on page 26 has a quote in a box about poor general, poor quality of care provided in many childcare arrangements in The United States do not support the benefits of high quality education, etcetera. That's a 2,004 national study as opposed to the state of affairs in Vermont in 2026. So as I read the assessment and keeping in mind how well Vermont does with 85 kindergarten readiness, 91% literacy for four year olds are where they should be with respect to literacy for four year olds. Aren't we already there with respect to achieving quality? I think we all agree value of high quality and a life changing difference a high quality program can make. But it seems as compared to other states, I'm not

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: sure where we're going from our already high-

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Well, I don't want to discount or discredit the immense amount of work that Vermont has done. I mean, we've been leaders in the nation around early childhood education and pre K and kindergarten readiness. What we think is that this will ensure that there's equity across different provider types. We do see that there are differences across the state of the education and training of providers. And the data does show that there's a link between those, the education and training, and the outcomes. And so what we're trying to do is ensure that all providers have the same levels of excellent education and training to make sure that the outcomes are equitable across provider settings and also across the state.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: And that the same standards are being those same NAICI standards are being followed.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: But again, I do think it's really important to emphasize that we are not saying that CDD is doing an inadequate job. We're not saying that early childhood educators right now are doing an inadequate job. What we are saying is we found that the whole workforce would benefit from increased training and education, particularly around brain development, and that that would continue to fill some of the gaps that we see even in Vermont in the equality of preparation. And then the other piece that really can't be understated is that individual regulation and individual accountability. And that's the biggest piece that we see as the whole. And that's the next part of the testimony. That is the next part So of the the gaps in the current system really are lack of transparency and lack of individual accountability. We really find that individual accountability means that when somebody is seeing something that is not in line with what they know to be the standard of care, They have agency to make a report against even someone who is their superior. And with transparency, that gives consumers, in this case parents, choices in where they send their children and accountability. So outside of the director of a facility or sole provider, the current system is not designed to help families identify individual educators or who supervise other members. The Bright Futures information system, which you'll hear a lot about, does not provide transparency into particular educators training and qualifications. And again, while CDD does have an internal list of prohibited providers, that is not publicly available to the public. And so what that means is that it's very hard for the public to see who has committed unprofessional conduct and what the ramifications of that unprofessional conduct is. It's actually even hard to see it at the facility level in some ways, but it's very hard to see it at the individual level. That is the biggest gap that this program will fix. And it's that individual licensee lookup, And it's the individual accountability, which does lead long term to a greater culture of compliance for everybody who's in the system, because people want to keep their license, people want, and there is a development of a standard of care. So I would anticipate similar to how we see in a nursing home that when there's misconduct done by someone who is a provider in a nursing home, frequently we receive the complaint about that conduct from another licensee in that nursing home. Then we do an investigation. I would predict that that's what will start to happen as individual licensure comes to this workforce. I know now sometimes individuals are calling CDD and then CDD is doing an investigation. But a lot of the harms that CDD is finding is on their routine inspections, which is great, and those will continue. But we will also be receiving complaints. And this will also give parents the ability to make a complaint to our office, which we will investigate. I do think it's important here to just say that we anticipate that we will do joint investigations with CBD. And we do that with Dale now. And we do that with Medicaid fraud and abuse now. So we have many other state agencies that we do joint investigations with. We actually love that model because it's a very good team collaborative model, And it also gives both agencies authority over the spaces that we can work in tandem and together and we do all the time with those other agencies. The disciplinary process at OPR has distinct advantages. And foremost, we can file emergency suspensions. So if there's imminent harm to the public, we have the ability to file a case and suspend somebody's license while the long term disciplinary hearing is pending. And then the charges are public. The licensee has the ability to defend against those charges. There's discovery. It's like a little mini court that we have. The cases are heard in front of the board for this profession. It would be a board of early childhood educators with an administrative law judge helping them. And then if a licensee is found in violation, there's a range of sanctions all the way from warnings and reprimands to revocation. That's the most stringent. In between, there is conditional, where someone needs to take additional classwork or be supervised to rehabilitate their practice. And I would say that the majority of cases at OPR are rehabilitative in nature. We don't suspend that many licenses or revoke that many licenses. I would say the most common ones are if you have sexually abused your client or patient, that's most likely a revocation. Or if you are someone who is struggling with substance abuse and really, we've given you opportunity, opportunity, opportunity to become sober while practicing and you can't maintain sobriety, we will suspend your license for longer periods of time. I don't think it was revoked in that circumstance unless it was something really egregious. We're always trying to rehabilitate, but we do revoke. And so those disciplinary orders are public, the charges are public. It gives a lot of transparency to the whole process. Our investigators, we have six of them who are criminal. So we do concurrent administrative and criminal investigations. So some of our cases at OPR are referred for prosecution at the state's attorney or the attorney general or The US attorney general. And some of our cases are pursued in the criminal court system, but the majority of them are prosecuted within our administrative process.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Do I have Representative Maguire?

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yeah. Upping up the requirements for licensure is going to mitigate these reports by what

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: percentage? We don't know the percentage, but what we do anticipate is that as people receive more training and higher education, particularly around brain development and the importance of that, that one, we are hopeful that incidences of unprofessional conduct would go down. But two, if it was occurring, that we would hear reports faster and from people who are also licensed within the facility.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: I'm really confused, so just to So we're raising the goalposts because of some of the behaviors out group. So we're actually, and I understand these things get big, but we're putting those good providers that are licensed at this time and requiring them to up that standard of license share in regards to these reports. I've never heard of certification. Certification is based upon your criteria and eligibility of completing what is being required or complete. And you speak of, well, it needs to be equitable. Well, I don't what do you mean by equitable? And I'm gonna use an example that I went through with the old yacht. Yacht your standards with like the LADC. I filed everything And what was responded back to me was your education is obsolete. And I went back and completed this amount of course to get up to it. The standards already established are some of the highest in the state all the way across the board for licensure in any field. We have some of the highest standards already put into place that over time has reduced our workforce. That's my concern with this, whether we recognize or not, do you have any estimate of the total licensees anticipated to get full implementation through this?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yeah, we do.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: How many early childhood educators are unlikely to meet your initial standards, and will have to work within a transitional licensure by 07/01/2028? To me, this bill seems to have the potential of reducing our childhood workforce and to the points that have already been made, we're one of the best in the country in what we're already doing. So I don't understand the reasoning behind all of this. A lot of what you're mentioning is, okay, we gotta be transparent and things like that. Oh, absolutely agree. So with that, how many cases have really been have been presented in the last two years that have raised this level of concern to where we're gonna up the standards all the way across the board and have the potential of causing more harm than good.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, well, was a couple of questions

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: in there. If miss one, let me know.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: I'm probably not going to remember them.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Okay. Well, I'm going to do my best. I think you're raising some really important questions. I don't want to miss one that you're mentioning. So right now, this workforce does not have a license. There are requirements at CDD that they're required to meet, but they are not licensed now. So that's very different than when I assume that you are with the LAVC profession at Department of Health, and then there was a decision to transfer it over to OPR. And in that transition, you're right that qualifications changed in that transition, a decision made by this body at a different time. But that is what happened.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Whatever the case may

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: be. Helped with that transition. And I'm sorry that it was rocky for you. It felt rocky, I'm sorry. That was a hard transition because Well, anyway. Was just, I actually think it was a great transition over time. I think that we were able to get to the national standard for LABCs, but that was a raising of requirements and it did take time.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Well, leave that aside.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: We'll talk about the time.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I'd be happy to talk about it. So on whole, I disagree with you that Vermont has higher standards than other states in the nation. If you look at all of our professions individually and collectively, we are one of the least regulated states in the nation. But when there are national standards for recognized professions, we try to meet those because we want to make sure that professionals can come in and out of our state. If we have substantially lower requirements than other states, that creates problems with license portability. And so we want to make sure that we can have licensees leave our state. And even more importantly, we want licensees to be able to come to our state. So we try to meet the national standards where they are, and not have anything additional. So with this profession, what we know is that there are qualifications now. And this is an elevation of those qualifications. Jen's passing around these worksheets, these spreadsheets, so you can see what the qualifications are and what they will be. What we know is that a large majority of current early childhood educators meet the qualifications in this bill. This is not, I don't know off the top of my head. I think it might be lower in our testimony or you'll hear from another witness or from us the percentage that have the requirements in this bill. But it's not 10 or 15 or 20. It's much higher. So there are people who have what's required in this bill who do not have the benefit of licensure, are not licensed by the state as early childhood educators, but do have the qualifications right now. And the other piece that I think is really important, it's not why OPR is sitting at this table. Why OPR is sitting at this table is because we think individual licensure is important, and we think without it, there's a risk to children. But this is a profession driven request. There is overwhelmingly, and you'll see in the Sunrise, you can find the stakeholder engagement that we did. We did broad outreach. You'll see the feedback. Jen, who wrote the Sunrise, took every comment and provided a synopsis of it in the Sunrise report. There was broad, broad support for this concept and for this bill. That's not to say everybody loves it. And so we've heard from the people who don't like it, and that we've been making adjustments as we've been going through the legislative process. But there's really, I guess, three things. We care most about individual licensure and the transparency and accountability that it provides to prevent harm from children. But the profession itself also really cares about the elevation and respect that it will get by having individual licensure. And right now that is missing as well.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yeah, I agree with all of that, but I just want to make sure we all understand that licensure doesn't make the decision on whether or not the person is going about their profession appropriate.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: No, it doesn't. I mean, I do think standardization of qualifications does help ensure quality. And I think individual accountability also helps ensure accountability and good care. And right now, we don't really have either. We have requirements at the facility level, but they're not for an individual themselves. And then we don't have accountability at the individual level. And that's the gap.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: And just where I was going with is a lot of what was being shared then looking at like the context of the bill, which disagreement was setting up the board and expanding these certifications. Just wanna make sure we're not raising the bar and moving the goalpost and reacting. I wanna make sure that we're responding. There's a big difference between a reaction and response. And there has been many, many times in which maybe one or two situations have recurred, we react to them, and it costs the other 98%.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yes, I hear what you're saying. And I think in response to that, I think it's really important that you hear from providers, and you hear why they would like to be licensed, and what this would mean to them as a profession and individually. And this is not just a movement in Vermont. There's a national movement to move towards this. So it's not a Vermont I mean, we would be first, but it's not a Vermont only concept. This is something that has been in this workforce for a long period of time. If you look into the legislative history of the Sunrise report and some of the prior legislative testimony around this topic, having individual accountability and the licensure has always been part of we're doing this step and then this step and then this step and then we're going to talk about this step. And it's been part of the childcare tax credit. One harm that, it's not really a harm per se, but one thing that we did find is because we're using so many public funds to support childcare, we believe that there should be accountability at the individual level for the use of those public funds. We are, as a state, making a huge investment in early childhood education. I think I would submit appropriately, and it's paying off. But we think not only the facilities should have accountability, but the individuals should as well.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: No, I don't disagree with any of those concepts at all. Not one nod on that. Thank you.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: We have a couple other questions, Representative Garofano. Thank you. I think you answered my first question, was you said we're first in the nation? We would be first in the nation, but this is not the only state that has this legislation moving. That was my other question. Can you talk about which other states have any legislation? Last I knew it was New Mexico. Don't know. I know. I know don't it's New Mexico. And a second question, and I apologize. I looked at the Sunrise report last year, but I haven't done it deeply this year yet. That's Okay. We talked a little bit about stakeholder feedback. Is there data in here demonstrating, talking about how many people were included in that? How many people came to the public hearings? Yes, there is. Okay. And we did broad, broad outreach. So basically anybody whose information, CBB, we sent it to. And we had incredible feedback, both written, and we had two or three public hearings where people attended either in person or remotely. Because I went to the pages that were noted, that noted stakeholder feedback, but that specific data wasn't in those pages. It may be The number of people? Yeah, number of how many meetings.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: In the Sunrise report, there is a section about the process, and I don't have the report in front of me, but I could I think that's on page 19. Located.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Thank you. So a

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: follow-up on that, if I may. Do I recall seeing reference to a survey that early childhood educators answered?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: By our office.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: About this, yeah, about this, their desire for professional education.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I think the Association for Early Childhood Educators of Vermont has done that survey. Our office did outreach and feedback and asked people to participate in our Sunrise. I don't think we did a survey per se, but I know the association.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So if you'll

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: look at page 23 of the Sunrise process, we got the application in May '24. We communicated with a lot of different agencies and organizations. We noticed two public hearings to over 1,000 family child care homes and center based preschool programs. And we use the, I said building Bright Futures, it's the Bright Futures information system that we use. Yes. And we asked AOE to include links to the public hearings in there. They had a newsletter, I think, that would go out. And we had over 100 people participate in those public hearings. And then I think it says we got 30 written comments. And there's an appendix at the back of the report where we summarized or paraphrased every single public comment or public testimony. So as I was writing this, I went back and watched everybody's testimony and tried to capture either the concerns about the bill or why they are not bill, but about the concept of licensure and whether they liked it or not and why.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: sometimes we learn about, we learn lessons from things that are happening currently. So I'm not saying that there wasn't sufficient effort in terms of outreach, but that's a pretty small number of people given the thousands of people who work in this field in the state. And what I wonder, and we'll hear from Sharon in a little bit, but what guess what I wonder, honestly, I don't want to repeat Act 181 on our hands where people find out about it after the fact and then they're up in arms about it, didn't realize it was going to impact their land rights or their right to own a business or for the future. And we're just looking at some recent data around the First Children's Finance and recent data from DCF that's showing really for the first time in a while, we're seeing more home based providers stepping up and expressing their entrepreneurial spirit. And those are things that we particularly want to encourage in the rural parts of the state, I mean, over, but particularly in the rural parts of the state. And so I do get a little concerned about people sort of like, despite your best efforts and despite the best efforts of VAYEC, that there are people out there that don't know that this is potentially coming. And so that makes me a little concerned. I'll be honest, it makes me concerned to be first in the country in doing this. There's lots of things that I love being first in. I'm not sure this is one of them, but we'll see how the process unfolds. And I appreciate that it's happening now in other states as well.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I mean, I think

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: this is And you're absolutely right. All through the process of looking at enhancing affordable, accessible, high quality childcare, we were looking at qualifications of individuals, the profession, trying to get more people to go into the profession and all of that kind of thing. It's been a process. I mean, this is sort of part of the process. I get that. Representative Noyes.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, thank you so much. Just a question on the input that you took. Were you able to get input from both urban and rural areas? And is there a breakdown or do you know what the feedback you got? Was it the same? Was one area different than the other? Are you able to-

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: It's interesting because I think we entered the conversation with our own predisposition that the family childcare, which is more common in the rural, would be more opposed to the qualifications. That isn't what we found. We found that those folks also are in favor of the qualifications. And I think one thing, and just to respond a little bit to you, Madam Chair, and I think it's a piece of ongoing conversation. I think one thing that's very different about this bill versus other bills that have moved through Act 181 as our most recent example is this is a workforce that already is involved in the state system. And this is a workforce that we reached out to everyone who's in the state system. So they were not unaware that the conversation was happening. In fact, we were very proactive about trying to reach out to them. The other thing is this is an issue where there is a very active association, which is very different than land use. That's true. Just want to It's in No, no, our memories right now. And that makes 100% sense. But I just don't want there to be an apples to apples comparison. No, I think you were, but I just wanted to really say that this is an issue where we've tried through a lot of methods, and I think we've reached everyone in communication who is in this workforce because we had all of their contact information from CDD. Whether or not they participated or not their choice, but they all knew that this conversation was happening. And the association has been a really strong partner and has been bringing people into the conversation or addressing concerns as they've come along. But Representative Noyes, back to your original question, while there has been, I think, concern more from family child care providers about the burden of going back to school, which I think is a fair concern, particularly if you're running your own business and you are in that business from 07:00 in the morning until 05:00 at night. When are you going to go back to school? Right. And that's one of the main reasons why we have all the variances and different pathways. And you'll see that there's that legacy pathway, which is if you're in the profession in 2028, you don't have to do any additional qualifications. It's sort of the grandfather grandmother legacy pathway. Then there's other pathways that give you eight years to obtain qualifications. For some folks, you may choose not to get an associate's degree, but just to get 21 credits in early childhood education. For other folks, they might choose to get the ECE2 with the associate's degree, which includes the 21 credits, or the bachelor's degree, which has those credits. But there's a lot of different pathways to get there. And that's because we recognize there's a wide diversity of current qualifications in the field. And we want everybody to have that will work for them.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Representative Garofano and then Representative Bishop, I do want the witnesses to be able to get through their testimony because we have several other witnesses this afternoon.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: So Lauren, I think you mentioned that you guys did a mailing through the CDD of listserv. And correct me if I'm wrong, we can check with the department, but is every individual that works in a program No. I think it's just the direction. Yeah, it is. Kind of making That is a really hard thing for our office to And that's one of the reasons why, and you know, maybe I just have trauma from COVID, quite frankly. But one of the things that OPR was incredibly good at doing was during COVID, I was writing with ACCD and Department of Health guidance for dental hygienists on how to provide dental hygiene care. And I could send a notice to every hygienist in the state directly. And that had such a huge benefit because hygienists typically operate under a dentist and a dentist tells hygienists how to practice. I mean, they have their independent scope and things that they can do completely independently. But we were able to communicate with every member of the health care system. And that is, as a state, a huge benefit. That's one of the things that we really struggled with in talking about contractors as we were trying to register home contractors. We had no idea how many home contractors are in the state because nobody has a list of the home contractors. Now we do. If you wanted to communicate something about the change in requirements for LNAs, we would be able to communicate those things to the LNAs tomorrow. And so one issue is with the sunrise, and we ask directors to tell their staff about this initiative. But do we know that they did that? No. But there's not a list of everybody who works in The States.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Thank you. So one of the points we've been discussing is the current state of the workforce and how close or far we are from that workforce being able to qualify as an ECE one, two or three. There's some data on page 46, if I can refer to page 46 that seems very different from one of the two data points. So in green box, it references 44% having an associate's degree or higher. In the workforce, 44% associate's degree or higher, over half of that 44% have a bachelor's degree or beyond. Something above 22%. If it's half of 44, we're roughly 22, maybe it's 25% of the workforce as a bachelor's degree. If we look at the other data point from Vasey, it looks like their estimate is that forty nine point seven seven percent could qualify as a ECE three, which requires a bachelor's degree. So I'm looking at, are we at 50%? Or are we at somewhere above 22%?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Well, I think what's happening too is that this is in those transitional times. So this is 72% after the transitional time, the second figure. No, these were figures that I

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: was pulling from two different reports, actually. So I was using the after school workforce report from 2023 and also using the data that was in the Sunrise application. So I was just pulling from different sources. And it's hard. Again, I think a lot of this goes to the workforce question of who's out there and with what qualifications.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: And that concerns me a little bit is not having a clearer picture as to how close or far we are from our workforce being able to meet the enhanced requirements that we're considering in this. And that's a pretty significant spread of somewhere 22% range, having a bachelor's degree or maybe 25% or double that, maybe 50%.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: And the other issue with this data that I'll just point out is also that we've seen a lot of improvements in the number of people that have degrees in the last two years. So since this report was written, I believe the data is also stale because we've got more people who have got degrees. Because Act 76 has never would

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: say we've spoken by the

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: 26 reports. So I understand that working from different sources of information and also not having a good sense of exactly how many people are in the workforce and what their qualification is.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Yeah. And it sounds like or hopefully we'll get some additional information.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Yeah. We'll try to also if we don't hear that in testimony, but I think you will. But if we don't, we'll try to nail that down further for you with current information. What we

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: know is that early childhood education programs in the state are full and that a lot of people are getting tuition assistance and that portfolio assessment. So people are getting college credit for prior learning, and that's working really well. And this builds on that, and we'll continue to use those things that have been happening out in the past.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And through that process, it's been

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: easy. Yeah.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: There were two other things that I want

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: to make sure

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: you get. Yeah, mean, we're so points that you haven't made.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Yeah, we're happy to come back. Yeah, of course. But you're going to hear so we talked about workforce retention. Obviously, that's a huge concern for us. There were two other issues that we heard at different points regarding this bill. One is the use of the term educator. And we heard from AOE at a couple of different points that they don't like the use of the term educator. They're concerned it will be confusing. S206 does use the term educator intentionally to convey that there's going to be increased professional preparation, education, training, that these folks are working under the same standards that educators who are in public school are working under, and individual accountability for high quality. So that educator title is important to the identity of the folks who are working in this profession every day. And so that was part of their Sunrise request, and that's something that OPR supports honoring for this workforce. The other thing we heard from AOE earlier this session was that under an interstate agreement for educator licensure, this has to do with licensure mobility, they're concerned that the term educator is somehow going to be negatively impacted by folks being licensed as early childhood educators under this bill. So I did point out that interstate agreement for educator licensure, this is on page nine, that's categorized as a teacher, an administrator, or support professional. And member jurisdictions can recognize additional categories of licensure that aren't addressed in that interstate agreement. So, the interstate agreement also differently has a separate definition for teachers. So really not sure about that specific concern by AOE, but you may hear more about that. And then the ECE three credential, we heard a little bit about.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I don't know if you

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Mainly that this is duplicative because the AOE does have an early childhood educator license. And we disagree that it's duplicative. One, if you hold an agency of education, early childhood educator license, you would not need a license under this bill. But also, AOE does not have authority or capacity under the current system to take on licensing early childhood educators who do not provide universal pre K. And that is a piece that we think should be overseen by the state, just like the state believes that universal pre K services, those essential hours that we have decided are important for every child, that's not all the hours that they're in child care. And we think the care that they're receiving in those other hours should be overseen and should have individual accountability just like those specific hours. Now, an early childhood educator licensed by AOE could be providing the totality of the care. But that is not always what's happening. Sometimes that early childhood educator licensed by AOE is spending set number of hours in this facility and then going to the next facility and providing it there and then going to the next facility. So we don't see this as duplicative. We see this as a dovetail program where the same standards, the same accountability is being done for the same workforce that's providing the same essential care, but that the AOE credential is for the purposes of universal pre K. And the OPR, early childhood educator, would be for all other care. And again, just like we will have to work closely with CDD, we will have to work with the agency of education to make it clear which credential people need to provide which type of services. And I think that is, while I don't want to say easy to accomplish, I think that is possible to accomplish. And I think that's an important piece of this bill is that we have the executive officer for this profession and the board to help individuals navigate this. Also, we will have a strong application system so we can be clear to the applicant. Are you seeking to provide universal pre K? You need to go to AOE. If you're not providing universal pre K, you're in the right place. This bill also has disclosures, a disclosure requirement to all families, which is not a requirement now of child care facilities where to make complaints about which type of conduct and who's licensed in the facility. So let's just say, Lauren Hibbert Child Care Center, I provide universal pre K. I would tell families who is providing universal pre K, but they're licensed with the agency of education, who's providing the remaining care and at which level, and that if you're concerned about their care, how to complain to OPR, and then also if you're concerned about the facility, how to complain to CBD. So a lot more disclosure to families about who from the state is participating in this system of care for your child. Would you envision, because I would think that CDD would want to know if there's been complaints about specific staff persons,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so that they and you mentioned earlier on doing joint investigations and joint fact finding and things like that. I'm curious. So I'm hearing you say that if somebody has a professional teacher's license from AOE, they're not required to get any kind of certification. Is the same true for an ECE three? For AOE, it's not reciprocal. No, it's not. I knew the answer to that question, I think, but just thought I would ask. Knew that you were being reciprocal, but I wasn't sure that the same was going to hold true.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: No, and that, I don't want to get into the politics of that. And that's AOE's decision and that's what this body's decision. But we think that it's unnecessary to provide, to have duplicate licenses as much as possible. And we do have duplicate licenses now with the Agency of Education, for instance. And a lot of times, unfortunately, it has to do a lot with teacher retirement, that duplicate license. So we license all social workers in the state. And then if you want to be a school social worker, you also have license. This causes a ton of frustration among school social workers in this state. But I believe my understanding, and I've been talking about this for a long time at the agency, is that that is because of retirement.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: One of the oh. No, I was going to say, Representative Bishop, then we need to move on to the next witness.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: A question. There are in the Senate bill, there's some proposed fees. Was that something that your office was involved in proposing?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yes.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: So a question. My wife is a second grade teacher. And so it struck me that this was more frequent and perhaps more expensive than what I believe my wife has done as a professional. Quick Google search, I'll caveat that it was a quick Google search. It appears that after your initial three years, you're a level two teacher and you renew every five years at a cost of $300 I think it was. This is two years at $2.75, the equivalent in EC3 bachelor's degree. So it's quite a bit more expensive and more frequent. Can you tell me what might have been possible?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: So the frequency is we think that it's appropriate to check-in with professionals every two years. Is sort of the national model. I don't know why the agency of education is chosen every four or five. It depends on which level you are. But we renew our credentials every two years. And in large part, that's because we think it's appropriate to check-in to make sure that people are doing continuing education, that we know people's criminal contacts, that we ensure that people are paying taxes, child support, etcetera. So we have a responsibility to ensure that competency, we think two years, and this is the national model, is the appropriate check-in. The fees is our estimation of what the program will cost based on the number of licensees that we anticipate and the cost of the program. AOE's fees, to my knowledge, there's a couple of things happening. One, they have not been adjusted or requested to be adjusted for many years under this administration. I'm not sure if they cover the cost of the program or not. But ours are required to cover the cost of the program. So our fees have to support our program. And we are special fund only. We don't receive general fund. That is very different than the agency of education. Something that we'd love to talk to this body about at some point, but that's where we are. And that is a key

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: difference between the two of us.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Thank you.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I have another question about these, but if we don't have time, we can

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, that's Okay. I just want to make sure if you have any last points that you want to make before I allow one last question.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: We have a thousand. I do have

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: just one. There's not going to be any wrong door when somebody makes a complaint, either about a facility or a person or whatever's going on in child care. So if we get a report about something and we're the wrong agency, we're going to talk to AOE, we're going talk to CDD. We work with our state partners very well, and we enjoy that work. So no wrong door. Thank you.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Go ahead, representative. Sure. Mine piggyback sort

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: of off of Red Bishop's question, but also thinking about how fees are decided for the incrementally higher levels of certification, basically. Is there more administrative labor involved in needing to Yeah. Well, there's a couple of things that we are trying to balance. One, yes, more qualifications means additional review. And generally, as people's qualifications increase, their independence increases, which makes investigating those complaints more complicated. So the difference between investigating an LMA case versus an APRN case is very different, the complexity of investigation. We anticipate that will be true here. The other thing is we do try to take some equity considerations in mind. An early childhood educator three is making a very different salary than early childhood educator one. And so we're trying to make sure that where we can, the fees are in somewhat relational to the salaries.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I think that was my question, trying to understand the rationale behind calculating what's required of the operations of doing the work that you do for licensure versus what is more consideration of somebody's ability to pay. I'm going to the website. I see different professions having dentists, I guess, for example, having much higher than others. And so even though I think that is reasonable, I also am concerned about charging fees for the just because somebody could pay versus the required operations involved. So if I can, I'm going use dentists as

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: The an dental board needs to cover the costs of their entire regulation for everybody who works in dentistry. That's oral surgeons to dental assistants. So we know the bucket of money that the dental board needs to cover, and we know the number of licensees in each category. And what we try to do is make sure that the fees are respectful and responsive to people's salary and income. So a dental assistant, we know we have, let's just say, 100 of those. And we know we have 200 dentists and we need to divide the money. We know how much money we need to generate. We look at how much revenue we need to get from the dentists and how much revenue we need to get from the dental assistants. And of course, the hygienists are in there too. I almost had a slip. So we're trying to figure out, okay, this is the whole pie. How much did the dentist cover? How much the assistants cover? How much of the hygienists cover? And then how does that break down? It's not an exact science. We try really hard to make it equitable. We are also doing a fee study, which I'm sure this committee will hear more about, where we want to look at fees on whole. And we also want to talk about this concept of the special fund only and covering this really important public protection need only with special fund fee generated revenue because we are somewhat unique in the state that we do that. And that means that the cost of that oversight is only on licensees, but it's a benefit to all. Maybe that's appropriate. That's a conversation we want to have. But it does mean that the licenses have to be high enough to cover the activity. Thank you. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right. Thank you both so much.

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Thank you. Look forward

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: to you coming

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: back. I was gonna

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: say that you will be back. Thanks very much.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Good afternoon.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I have a quick question for you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I was doing a preview of your testimony and the slides part where you provide the link requires permission. Oh, did you click on it? I did click on it and I requested permission, but I just is doing an epi on that. Let me just see if You might wanna take off the permission if you're expecting people to

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Maybe someone who is listening behind the scenes can take care of it so I don't Okay.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Sounds good. How would that be?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's perfect. I will give me a second here to get a little organized here.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I'd see if the screen share works before we dive in. Always get a little fumble. Did not work. Is that

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I I No. I just I pressed on the link, and it just says I need per you need access. Yes. And from my it's from the report.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: You want to highlight your report and then share. So just disregard that whole little thing back there. Okay. Hopefully you want to put it on because it's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a Google, it automatically goes to my Google account. Yeah,

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: me too.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I'm glad. Okay, felt good.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, Curt, sorry.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Hooray. So I know this is a lot. So good afternoon for the record. I'm Sharon Harrington, the executive director for the Vermont Association for the Education of Young Children, which is a mouthful. So Vermont AUYC. And I've heard us record this as the association, and that is correct. And so we have a few slides to share, and I did submit our testimony. And based on your questions, I might not be answering the things that you are wondering about. We were trying to anticipate that. So I will share that. I'm happy to come back. We know this is complex. I appreciate that this committee is so well grounded in early childhood education and understands the complexity. And so my goal today is to outline what this bill does, who it applies to, and why the early childhood educator workforce is asking for it. And in a moment, I'm going to introduce my colleague here, Susan Titterton, who's been directly connected to the project and probably can provide some of the context that you've been asking questions about. But because I'm new to this committee and new to some of you folks, I thought I'd take a minute and just let you know who I am, because that might help us as we have future conversations. So I've been in early childhood education for the past twenty five years. And for those of you who are much younger than I am, this won't make a lot of sense. But when I was

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: in high school, I wanted

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: to be a nursery school teacher, which in our world now, that would be an early childhood educator. But I had no idea how to do that. Didn't come from a family who had pursued higher education. I joined the workforce. And it wasn't until much, much later in my life that I found my way back. So when I started in early childhood, I began by doing literacy visits with family childcare programs in Bennington County. And I would go into programs and I'd provide the books and then I would model literacy skills. And that was sort of where I started the desire to have a more connection to this career. So from there, I worked eight years in an accredited center based childcare program in Arlington. I'm dropping talent because I know people are curious, Who does she belong to? I live

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: in Rutland now, so I'm moving So up the far,

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Rutland is the first one you've hit on this path.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: So I'm moving up the state. But when I took that position in that center, my experience was as a mom. I came as a parent of two thriving young children. I had done a lot of volunteer work. And I thought that I understood what early childhood education in a child care program would be. And I understood pretty quickly that when I used to show up every day to work with 10 or 12 two year olds from diverse backgrounds and various developmental stages and different family structures, I worked with unhoused families, foster families providing foster care, and then children with lots of different special needs, whether it's speech and language pathology, physical disabilities, special health needs. Helped me realize that I didn't have the experience or knowledge of trauma informed care or special education needs of young children. And I was struggling. And I really clearly understood the needs of my own children, but I did not understand the needs of all the children that I was interacting with on a daily basis. And so that's a little bit about why I'm so passionate about this bill, because I realized to do best for children, I needed to be prepared. And in turn, as an educator, that also made me feel more competent and qualified to provide what children needed. So that's a little bit of my history. And so once I figured that out, I started navigating the existing professional development system. And I was taking workshops and courses, and I did that for many years. And so after a number of years, I did a prior learning assessment. So I earned 30 credits for my experience in my role. And what I didn't know, and I know now, is that I could have saved a lot of money and a lot of time and been better prepared if I'd had a streamlined career pathway. And so when I graduated my bachelor's degree, I had two ninety credits instead of the 120, and a lot of student debt, And I spent a lot of time and I was working full time, full time student in an accelerated program. So I just shared that that's what's happening now. So while working in that program, I advanced to become a lead educator in a classroom. I had two assistant teachers. Because when you work with two year olds, they don't have a lot of self help skills and your day is busy and you literally cannot take your eyes off anyone. So you're helping them with every little thing. And the most exciting thing is a year later, they leave as preschoolers. They can usually dress themselves. They know their colors. They recognize patterns. Many of them recognize their name in print. It is the most incredible time to watch the development of young children. It's my favorite. And that is that window between two and three. And it's also the busiest time because you're watching them absorb everything. And so as a lead educator in the classroom, what I experienced was a revolving door of assistance. They would think this was the

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: right place for them.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: They would come in without any preparation. And it's hard and it's complicated. And it's not helpful for young children to have a different caregiver in their life every other week or every other month. And so I had constant turnover in those assistant roles. And that was twenty years ago. And that's still true today. So I left center based care and started working at a parent child center as a resource and referral specialist, helping families find childcare, offering professional development workshops. And you can imagine finding childcare was a lot more difficult then than it is now. And I spent another eight years after that working with a team covering the five Southern counties of the state, offering mentoring and technical assistance and grant making. So I know that rural childcare is something that has come up in other committees. And I just want to share that when I talk about the rural needs in the state of Vermont, I personally have a good sense of that landscape. And now in my current role at Vermont AUIC, we have staff with boots on the ground in every corner of the state now. So we have a constant feedback loop about what's happening in programs. And so you're going to hear a lot of testimony about this bill. And I'm just going to encourage you to think about who will be impacted and the opportunity to shift the trend for early childhood educators feeling unprepared to meet the needs of children they are responsible for. We can see that OPR is incredible. They have done their own unbiased research, and I think they've made a strong case about why this is so important for the well-being of young children through their analysis. And in my experience, this is also about the well-being and sustainability of our early childhood educator workforce. You can tell I'm pretty passionate about this, and I believe that addressing this is long overdue. So I'm gonna shift to my prepared testimony, and we'll share a little bit of data. It might not be all the data you're looking for, but there are some new reports that if you haven't seen that will answer some of your questions specifically about the workforce and the trends that we see and the positive things that are already happening with Act 76. So I really do appreciate this time. And for those of you who are not familiar with our organization, Vermont AUIC is a nonprofit organization, and it's the largest membership organization and advocacy organization for early childhood educators in Vermont. And we are the state affiliate of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. And you've heard reference to the standards and competencies, which are tied to the NAICS, the other acronym that we keep dropping the alphabet soup. And so as a national organization, NACI's role is to promote high quality early learning for each and every childbirth through age eight by connecting practice, policy and research. And in Vermont, our organization works to advance equity and excellence in early childhood education with our vision that Vermont's children thrive and realize their true promise in supportive communities. And I need to give a shout out to the Child Development Division. We partner closely with the Child Development Division to provide a wide array of programs and services for early childhood educators and programs. And these are the resources that are foundational to our systems readiness for professional recognition. Vermont AUIC, for the last several years, has been laser focused on recruiting and retaining our workforce that educates our youngest children. And we can say that these resources are working. So because of that, Vermont AUIC supports this legislation because it strengthens our early childhood educator workforce and because it's what the workforce itself has helped to design. When early childhood educators feel recognized, valued, and treated with the respect that they have been seeking, then this feels one of the reasons why they really are supportive of this bill. So I just want to say that as our state's largest membership organization, our role is to elevate their voices. This bill reflects their voices, and we believe that if we're serious about growing our workforce, we should start listening to the people who are doing the work. And so I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Susan, who will share the workforce engagement leading up to this moment in the national context.

[Susan Titterton (Project Coordinator, VTAEYC)]: Thank you. For the record, I'm Susan Titterchin, project coordinator of this workforce led initiative, which we've been calling Advancing Early Childhood Education as a Profession. The work started a number of years ago when a task force of Vermont Early Childhood Educators was formed, and they were considering how to save and strengthen that workforce. Educators were leaving the field, career pathways were unclear, coursework didn't necessarily lead to degrees, and qualification requirements were inconsistent. Since the beginning, Vermont at EYC has supported this effort to make recommendations for what the design of a profession could look like, both for the workforce as well as for children and for families in our state. So in my role as coordinator, I worked with the task force and I also was really making sure we were engaging enough of the workforce members to have a credible sample size. And I can talk with you a little bit about that if that's something you'd like to know more about. And that we had educators from all roles and all kinds of settings and all parts of the state. So we really worked hard to be inclusive and bring people in. The task force recommendations for the profession were created through a consensus process. And that meant gathering input from this large sample of educators that we were engaging. Over the years of that work, we published four consensus reports. They were very detailed and brought all that input together. We shared them broadly with the field as well as with partner stakeholders, and they all are available on Vermont AUIC's website. So we really did the work, but then said, this is what we learned. This is what we heard. What do you think? And these showed a high level of agreement with different pieces that we were bringing out to the workforce, which ranged from 89% to 98% agreement with these different components, professional identity, the three designations, and so forth. In total, our records were that over 1,000 educators engaged with us over the course of these four consensus cycles. They provided input and that helped shape the recommendations. And many more, as you've heard, participated once OPR began their seminars review process and as well in this legislative process that's been going on. So I believe that we have shown broad sustained support for this ECE profession bill among the early education workforce. And I'd be happy to take more questions on that, but maybe I'll finish the three slides that I'm going to talk about. And love to hear some of those questions you had for OPR and may be helpful with those. In terms of the national context, Vermont, yes, is regarded as a leader by our national colleagues. And I think in part that's because we ensured that the workforce was very engaged in this, in shaping policies that would impact them. Our grassroots approach, as far as I know, is unique in honoring the voice of the workforce. In that larger context, as you heard a bit, our work in Vermont is happening in parallel with what's happening at the national level. The framework of the bill comes from the Commission on Professional Excellence in Early Childhood Education that has 27 representatives. 16 of them are from early childhood organizations, including the National Association for the Education of Young Children. This is all the nationals, right? The National Association for Family Child Care, the National Association for Early Childhood Teacher Educators, and the National Education Association. And I want to add that just recently, we have a Vermonter on the commission, and that's Becky Millard, who's the director of Northern Lights at CCB. In addition to those organizational voices on this national commission, there are 11 early childhood educators, various states and settings, to ensure that their voice is part of that national work. So Vermont is not alone, as you've heard a bit about this. Other states are making major strides towards this idea of the national profession, and they're now considering ways that they could strengthen childcare in their states. And some of them are asking for our playbook. Recently been in touch with New York and Delaware, and there have been others who are saying, help us to inform our next steps in this work. And as we talk with other states, we highlight that while Vermont was moving forward in making historic investments in early childhood education through Act 76, the workforce was at the same time designing what accountability and professional standards could look like. So even though that was more behind the scenes, these things were happening. In terms of workforce engagement, the bill is a direct result of the years of workforce engagement that we were committed to. We kept using the term nothing about us without us and that idea that people really need to be engaged in these kinds of changes. Our engagement was so thorough that the Office of Professional Regulation, I believe, not only determined licensure was necessary to protect public safety, but they did wind up eventually closely aligning with many of the recommendations that we had put in our Sunrise Review. So when I say workforce engagement, I'm really stressing that this was not just a top down regulation being imposed upon the workforce. It's been informed by and most impacted by the most impacted stakeholders all along. And that's important for a bunch of reasons. One of them is our current child care workforce is familiar with our current childcare system. So they have informed opinions about each piece of it. And the system, some people like to compare, I don't know if this is an apt comparison, but some people compare them to an old Vermont farmhouse, where over the years you make changes to the farmhouse and some of them eventually may look like they're duplicating something, other doors may not go where you think they were supposed to go, but the system's kind of evolved in that way perhaps. And what we think this workforce initiative does is design a more central system that we could bring to OPR and then they to the legislature, excuse me, to say, here's what we think will work better for all of us. Child care investments in recent years, especially Act 76, have changed what's possible and what's expected. And thank you to the child care champions who helped to make that possible. And while major investments, what major investments in Act seventy six and forty five mean is that the workforce has capacity to plan for their futures and not just get through the day. Since Act 76, the regulated childcare workforce has increased by 8.5%. And the number of educators with a degree has grown over 22% just since Act 76. That tells us something important, which is when we invest and create pathways, the workforce responds. The system is already getting ready for this transition. Preparation programs are being aligned across the professional designations. More current educators are pursuing coursework and degrees, and aspiring future early childhood educators are expecting licensure. There is support for the bill because it simplifies and clarifies the complexities that have existed for years. One other thing I want to make sure that you're aware of, and this is in the name of workforce engagement, Just recently, there was an op ed published by 16 family childcare homeowners from throughout Vermont. And I know that we've heard from outside groups who've been talking about how regulations harm family childcare and as a result rural Vermont, these actual family child care owners in rural Vermont have a different perspective. So if you want to know how the bill will impact them, please listen to and take a look at that piece that they shared out publicly just recently.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: So I'm going to hand it back over to Sharon here, and maybe we'll do questions later, whatever is best you. Thank you, Susan. So before I transition to the next topic, I just wanted to acknowledge one of the things that we know nationally is that there's a 30% turnover rate in the workforce for early childhood educators. And I say that because you may hear from people who didn't know this was happening. And so part of that is due to this churn of the workforce. And so what I want to acknowledge is that throughout This has been almost a decade in the works, this particular project. And so they have posted ongoing engagement opportunities throughout that process. And last session, once a bill was presented, OPR came to Senate government operations, I think, we began hosting regular roundtable conversations and have continued to do that throughout both legislative sessions, inviting anyone who had questions about what the bill was, understanding what the transition would look like. And so I wanted to just share that those voices at the table who expressed curiosity, questions, excitement, and concerns has really shaped the amendments that are in the current bill. And so one of the things that we've noticed is that folks who were unaware and their first reaction is fear, and because they don't have the information, when they're fully grounded in the supports, the transition timeline, which is very generous, and the why, their perspective changes. Some of those folks, there's like off the top of my mind, think someone very specifically who provided testimony in opposition last session about this bill is now advocating for this. So I think that if people come to you with questions, we want to hear from them because that's how we know what resources and supports are missing or that they think are needed. So when I say that we're here to elevate voices from the workforce, it's all voices, not just those that are supported by this. So this is what I have heard you referenced a few times, and we've heard it before. So the question is about cost. I know that's a concern for this committee. And what I wanna acknowledge is what this bill does is streamlined, which we believe ultimately will reduce costs. Things are expensive in Vermont. We know that. And costs are continuing to rise across the board. And childcare is not immune to that. But S206 is not a mechanism for raising costs, and it doesn't set the stage for raised costs immediately. So we would not get behind this bill if we thought the costs would create harm for our workforce or for the Vermont families in the communities that they serve. Act 76 already fundamentally changed and stabilized the financial picture for childcare. And so as we move towards the true cost of care, and what we know is that ECE one, two and three, that are the designations that OPR has referenced, was built into the Vermont Cost of Care Modeling commissioned by the RAND Corporation. And so it's already been planted into the system. And so we are incredibly grateful for the investment of Act 76 and its impact. And we are fully aware of the childcare contribution in every paycheck that's being invested by Vermonters. And we're not here to ask for more. But what we know is in the absence of licensure, Vermont and the national pay for lots of workarounds to ensure some kind of accountability is expensive. And so when we don't have professional standards and competencies, we pay for it in other ways to regulate our workforce from the sides. And that sounds a little bit like your farmhouse analogy. So what we're currently trying to do is regulate the individual through the program. And so a system that centers individual preparation and accountability can streamline this. This bill gives us the frame so we can start to begin peeling off some of the layered regulations. And the other piece that I hear concern about is the cost to the workforce. The cost to the workforce that is not covered is specifically the licensing fee, which I heard come up a couple of times. And so we've looked into this and there are some places that we think that could offset that cost. And we're actually already working with outside funding. So when we began this work, we made a pledge not to advocate for additional costs or fees that weren't unwound somewhere else. And so our assessment is that the cost of renewing a license every two years will eventually be offset through wage increases that have already happened through Act 76, because what we talked about is wages are already going up since Act 76 happened, resource allocation and potential philanthropy. So Act 76 investments and improved funding streams have already increased compensation for family childcare homes and many center based programs. And Vermont a thing that we don't mention often, I think, is that wasn't mandated. That was not a requirement of Act 76 to raise wages, but it's happening. Vermont has robust financial supports to help educators or tell the educators pay for their qualifications. Cost free education leads to better wages. Included in my testimony, there's a link to our Teach Impact Report, which is a scholarship model that actually has specific data about wage increases. And unlike me, we're not gonna have folks who are paying for lots and lots of courses that aren't going to staff transfer or lead to a degree. The other thing that we've heard from administrators of programs is that center directors tell us that navigating the qualifications of job applicants and training new staff is requiring a tremendous amount of their time and investment. And a new system of licensure frees up that administrative overhead and reduces staff turnover. And that is so valuable that we've had directors multiple times say, and in testimony, that they would cover those licensing fees for their staff because they feel it's gonna be that impactful for them and their program. And then from myAUIC is already in conversations with multiple philanthropic partners about covering some of the costs for the initial licensing fee for the workforce as we transition into this new system.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We have a couple of questions. I'm to ask mine

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: first. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm just wondering if when you're I'm having a hard time really understanding how it does not set the stage for raising costs in the future, rising costs in the future. Maybe not necessarily around the licensing, you know, although that's a cost. It's over $1,000,000 being estimated. We have expectations over time that salaries increase. That was part of the impetus for raising or doing Act 76 and all of the things that go with it and the professional development that we funded and all of that kind of stuff. So similarly, as in school districts, when somebody improves their educational status, they get a raise. And then if they go up another step, then they get another raise. And they go up a third step, and then they get another raise. And so I'm having a hard time understanding how this is not going to raise the cost of childcare in the future. It's a fair question.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: And we don't know. I think that one of the things that I would imagine, not having been a part of building Act 76 in the way that you all did, is that over time, you will revisit those childcare financial assistance rates and make decisions based on that scale. What I am saying is that already the investment that we have now is raising wages. So this is not an immediate request to increase wages. And it's interesting that logically it makes sense that people would get increases, but that's not what's happening. One of the things that's happening now is that the roles and responsibilities and scope of practice and preparation are inconsistent. And so that is another piece of the program administration complexity, is if you're constantly hiring new staff, investing and training new staff, and not being able to open classrooms because you don't have adequate staff, we believe this is going to grow the workforce. The pillars of Act 76 is the affordability for families and through CCFAP stabilizing the childcare program. But if we don't grow that workforce, all of that investment is in jeopardy. So there's multiple pieces that are connected to the financial pieces. But I think that, for example, one of the things that we know is that the childcare regulations are dense. And I am not expert on the childcare regulations, but I know that there are, for example, two sets of regulations for family childcare. If there were aligned qualifications, you could probably reduce the administration of two sets of regulations and it would streamline the licensing visits. I can't speak for CBD. That's part of the untangling. And what I'm saying is that this isn't coming with a request for additional investment for wages, because right now looking for accountability for that investment that you've already made. Think that there are probably few industries that are showing growth in their workforce and increase in qualifications. And that's directly related to the investment that's already been made. I just think that it's like, will cost for childcare go up? Of course, because like every other business, costs are gonna go up. I mean, we're thinking about, those are businesses that need to be sustainable. But I don't think that this is the thing that is going to drive costs up because you're gonna be able to, through that transition period, the two years to stand with the profession, untangle some of those regulations. Your administrators are gonna have more capacity. So they're gonna be able to focus on quality and all of the efficiencies and stable up their programs. And what we know is nationally, this is one of the, if not the lowest paid professions or one of the most important professions. And so this is not a Vermont problem. This is a national problem. And I'm not seeing any quick solutions currently. But every state is advocating for further investment and compensation is a part of that. So I think that it's That's just the way it is in our country. Sad to say that someone who is working with two year olds, shaping them in the way that I was describing, and I was making 25¢ above minimum wage to do that. So yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I just take issue with that it does not set the stage for raising costs in the future. A I have a disagreement with that.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Okay. Maybe it could be said differently, but I think that the point is like, we have heard folks say, this bill is intentionally designed to increase the cost of childcare. And I'm saying that is not our intention. So think that we could phrase it differently, and I'd love your guidance on that. But that's really like the It's a little myth busting, I guess.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Representative Bishop.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: My question was along the same lines, so I guess I'll just make it an observation and echo that concern. I think that's just a natural result of what will happen as people's qualifications increase, there's a fair expectation that with increased qualifications, they'll receive a higher wage. In fact, in the submitted testimony, the second bullet point talks about the financial supports available to pay for qualifications. And it's a cost free education that leads to better wages.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yes, and they deserve that for

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Yeah, and I think there is a natural increase year over year for products, services, etcetera. I'm having a hard time seeing how this wouldn't amplify that increase and how that gets paid for is a challenge.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: What I can say, something that I have shared in the passing conversations is that we have a lot of people and I have that report that can share with you the number. I think it's I quickly tried to look while you were taking testimony, like 65% ish of folks who are already qualified in those three designations in the most recent workforce report. And those people are showing up every day and their average wage is $18 an hour. So I just want to say, if we want to recruit people who are committed to staying in this profession, this is a way to begin that process. And so I'm looking to Part of this work has been future facing. A lot of the work that Susan did with the task force was like, theoretical. It was like, if you could have what you think that Vermont needs for young children and early childhood educators, what might that be? And then there's this long transition period. And I think that who knows what will happen? It's just really unfortunate that we are exactly where we were twenty years ago when I was in a classroom and watching people churn in and out. In one year, I think I must have had six assistants. In one child's one year. So I hear you and I am a taxpayer too. I hear you. I'm not looking to advocate for increasing taxes. But what I am saying is this is long overdue. And if we want to stabilize and continue to grow the early childhood educator workforce, this could be a path to do that.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: And I guess there's a question or concern in my mind that as we grow, particularly with the ECE three, if there isn't a path forward to figure out how wages can be increased, The incentive seems to be that if you're going to go to that level of qualification, why not sell the AOE path and be an early childhood educator in a public school system where your pay will be more commensurate with the qualifications And what impact does that then have on our mixed delivery system?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: That's our world now. And I think you'll hear testimony from folks who have AOE licenses who choose to work with young children.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: But might be accelerating it if more people at the ECE three will be closer to that decision.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Well, now, the growth in our ECE, what would be our ECE three, has been an opportunity for private programs to partner up in Universal Pre K. And so that's already been in motion for a number of years. And that's part of the reason we have many people who already meet the qualifications, is because this is a shift, but it's not a huge shift. It's also validating the work for anyone working with infants and toddlers and anyone in private programs who are not partnering for universal pre K. Representative Maguire. Complicated. I hear you.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Thank you. Just kind of on the same thing, because credentialing reform will not within itself stabilize the workforce unless it's somehow paired with a compensation strategy. And after what was on there, probably right now, the like the compensation levels, are they sufficient enough to retain staff who meet the licensure requirements within this bill?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I guess that's a to be determined. I think that what we know is that those who have qualifications tend to stay because they made the commitment and the choice to become qualified. And so what we see and what we've heard in testimony is that those folks who have chosen this as a career and have gone to earn their associate's degree or their bachelor's degree tend to stay because they've made a career choice versus I'm taking a job because I can get in and it doesn't matter if I have any qualifications.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: And my question to that is coming off of really this report here on page 16, which was mentioning the average salary for such a teacher 39,000, which is far lower than the average salary 54,000 for a Vermont kindergarten teacher, this can make it difficult for early childhood educators to be made in the field. Therefore, being able to pair the certification with the compensation strategy, you're gonna get a better outcome in regards to retention. And then you take a peek and recognize now with the language within this bill certification is the compensation sufficient at this time in regards to what the licensure is and to be determined can be very precarious.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah, I hear you. I hear you. And I think that workforce report that I'll make sure I submit after, and there's a new workforce report that's in the process right now. That's a wage and benefits report that will be released in the summer. Will give us more updated information. I think that what we are hearing is that programs that have used their increased revenue through Act 76 are investing in compensation. And some programs have high qualifications like Head Start already requires an EC3. So there are concerns for sure, but this is actually creating a more streamlined and accountability measure for some of those things that are already happening.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: No, I agree. All licensure. That's not, we can insert and see the other pieces. Obviously, you don't wanna see licensure advance faster than pay reform.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah. And this is honestly one of the things that's a little sad, I guess, is that we hear so much from early childhood educators that, I choose to do this work even though I'm not being paid a comparable wage, but it's what I choose to do. It's my service to children. It's what I choose to do. And if I could just get some respect and be valued for the work that I do and the education that I bring to this, that means a lot to me. So while we're really focused on compensation, and absolutely, there was a lot of early childhood educators who would choose to be working with young children but can't afford to stay because of the compensation, that is a natural problem. And we also have people who figure out ways to continue to stay because this is what they choose to do with their life. So I wish it was easy that we could magically resolve this issue. But all across the country, there are lots and lots of groups and organizations that are focusing on how to increase wages and compensation so that it is in parity with public education. Because that is And we know that that is very positive. And we are not That's not the intention of what I was saying. That's not what we're looking for.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Oh, no, no, no. I didn't know that I was intending that at all.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: No, no. Yes. No.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You can keep going because I'm also, I don't want I I want Anna to have some time. Yes.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: It's exotic. OPR gave you a little overview of the bill. I'm not gonna go into this in much detail, but this is a visual that we created to show how it fills the gaps in the system and who is included and who isn't included. And what we wanted to acknowledge that this fills the gap. And it's especially important for family child care educators because the current system makes it harder, not easier, for these small businesses to grow. And so this creates clearer and more flexible pathways and career mobility. So currently, early family childcare programs, their qualifications are lower. And so if this would allow them to have career mobility, like when their life circumstances change, they might work in a center when their children are older, if they can go back and forth, which is what we see happens with the workforce. And so we know, we've talked about a little bit about universal pre K and who isn't included in this. And I just wanna say again, no one's asking for more regulation for the sake of regulation. We're just looking for the right regulation and a role for early childhood educators in the creation of that regulation. So one of the things that Lauren and Jen shared was the governing board of early childhood educators with expertise specific to this field. And we believe that that is a really important piece of the governance. And that's one of the things that we think is really powerful. And so we've talked a little bit about the value of clear career pathways to strengthen the workforce to recruit and retain, and the clear expectations and shared standards and professional recognition. And so one of the things that this does is it creates clear spokes of practice, which I referenced earlier, so that directors actually know who's qualified to do what particular work. And so what we know is that the lack of clear career pathways, that confusion drives people out of the field. That's one of the pieces, trying to understand how get to where I need to go. And so we do believe that this is gonna help the public better understand the qualifications, and it's also going to help those who are working in programs to build a recognition and have trust in their competencies. I'm trying to breathe through a little bit because I want to share a good story here. So one of the things that we can share is that we have seen what happens when early childhood educators have access to clear pathways and support. And so this is the story of Vicki Grattenden. She's an early childhood educator in Franklin County who started by taking care of her neighbor's children. Then she opened a registered home program and realized that this was her calling. And so Vermont AUIC, with the support of the Child Development Division, administers the Teach Early Childhood Scholarship Program, which helps early childhood educators earn their degree while continuing to work. And Vicki was one of those educators. And as she put it, Teach made my dream possible. The longer I take classes, the more I want to learn to provide children with a safe, loving and positive learning environment. And this is what it looks like for her community. So Vicki and Michelle Marchant Sheldon, who also ran a family childcare program, leveraged their qualifications to access grants and resources to open Swanton's first childcare center, Spark Academy, which tripled the childcare capacity and created new early childhood educator jobs. Six months later, they opened Baby Spark, an infant and toddler center, to serve even more families in their community. And we've talked about why this is especially important for rural communities, because family childcare is often their sole source of care. So the amendments that are included in the current version of the bill have been created to accommodate small businesses to have access to flexible pathways so that they can grow. And so that's the kind of growth that we anticipate could happen. It's based on the historically under resourced family childcare and center based programs. And there's a family childcare owner, Chris Nelson, who provided testimony previously. And she wrote, Quality doesn't happen on the door you walk into. And so she's saying it's the person who is in that door, whether it's a center or family childcare, that is an important piece of this. So Vicki is a driven person who took advantage of the resources to grow and meet her rural community needs. And licensure makes what she did accessible so more early childhood educators can grow their programs and respond to community needs and strengthen the childcare system. Another good story that shows about the future of our workforce is young Vermonters. We obviously want to keep them here, and they're excited to join a recognized profession, and they're earning their qualifications now. So growing our early child educator workforce has been on the legislature's mind for a long time. The COVID shutdown made it clear to everyone how essential this workforce is to our state's overall workforce, business health and economy. So the legislature had this brilliant idea to fund a pilot program, which was a great learning opportunity. Launching a pilot program during COVID was not the best time, but we did learn a lot from that project that actually shaped the youth apprenticeship model, which is happening now in many career and technical education centers across the state. And so that program has more than tripled since its pilot year. And the way that is structured is youth apprentices get paid work experience in their community childcare programs. It's often a training ground for future employment. And they graduate high school with transferable college credits. So three quarters of last year's youth apprentices received summer or permanent job offers from those sponsored programs. And those programs really appreciate having the opportunity to train their staff the way they want them to be. And so this is another way that we're growing and connecting people to the field. And we have some of those instructors talking about, this is going to be a recognized profession. This is what you are coming into. So a former youth apprentice, Laura Zargot, who is now a freshman at UVM, She provided testimony during the OPR hearings. She's provided testimony to committees. Last year, in her senior year of high school, she testified, I'm graduating high school for ECE one licensure. Licensure creates a pathway for students like me to envision a lifelong career in early childhood education. So our future workforce is there. Is just the youth apprenticeship is one pathway. And so when we create these clear pathways and people enter, they can continue to move forward. And I've mentioned this a couple of times that we believe that the investment has already been made through Act 76, and it does require accountability and transparency and clear standards for those qualifications. I'm not gonna go into all the details, but I'm happy to, but it's in the written testimony. But the thing, what happened in Vermont that's unique, as Susan said, is that it's been workforce led. And the reason that we are ready for this is because the resources and supports are already in place. And the culture from ten years ago, where I'm just gonna do the minimum thing to just be able to keep my job, has now turned into, I value my education and what this is the opportunities it brings to me. So the workforce is already moving in this direction. And so the question is, how are we going to support them to do so? I am a career changer. I went through that prior learning assessment through CCV as a first generation college student. And what we know is that support to overcome obstacles, financial, time, fear of not belonging, those are some of the barriers. And that's where Vermont has excelled. We have invested in those resources. We have an emphasis on mentoring. And what we see is it's working. We have had 22% increase in individuals with degrees. And we are continuing to support early childhood educators who deserve pathways that honor what they know. I think that OPR covered a little bit about, and it's in my testimony, about what the research shows about children's outcomes. And so what we think about this is we know that a stable, high qualified early childcare system with qualified educators supports families' ability to work, reduces stress, and it improves those long term outcomes for children. So here's a little bit of the data that I was referencing. I won't read it all, but you have it there. You can read it at your leisure. One of the things I will point out though, is that Teach Impact Report will illustrate that half of those recipients were first generation college students representing all 14 Vermont counties. And what you see is that wages increased in relationship to that. And so that is the investment that programs are making to retain their qualified staff. So that was a lot. And I'm just gonna end where I began. The early childhood educator workforce is asking for this. They make the choice to be there every day for children because that's their commitment. And they're asking for clear standards, professional recognition, and a system that will grow and strengthen this field. And so S206 is about simplifying a really complicated system, strengthening accountability for existing public investment, and supporting a workforce that Vermont families rely on every day. So just gonna say, I urge you to support it. Happy to come back, have one on one conversations with anyone, gather up whatever data I can. One of the things that we know is, and I think OPR sort of invert this, is that it's really difficult to find the data. It would be great to know how many ECE ones there are, so we would know what to build to help them get to an ECE two. But that's one of the complications of our system.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you very much, both of you. I appreciate it. I appreciate all the time and energy and outreach that you've done to folks in the field and representing them through this process. Okay, thank you. I'm going move to Anna now. Thank you for your patience, Anna.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: You all have a hard

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: stop at four or should I? 04:15.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Certainly, if you're not able to finish, we can ask you to

[Jennifer “Jen” Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: come back to it. Correct.

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Not a worry.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: The sun on the back

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is nice, but it's getting a little warm in here.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: On the back.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Your old thoughts.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah, for us today.

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: All right, I'm just joining the Zoom meeting so I can share my screen.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: You see me in the waiting room?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: There you are. Okay. Awesome.

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Alright, we're seeing that. Okay, thank you for your patience. A lot of things on one screen. It's good to be with you all. Anne Brouillette, I'm the Policy and Program Director of Building Great Futures. You all are quite familiar with our work, but usually see my colleague, Morgan Crossman. She's on vacation this week, so I get the pleasure of joining you instead. You all had a long afternoon already and heard quite a bit about this proposal, but I do just kind of want to provide from Building Bright Futures perspective some of the best kind of data and questions to be asking when you're thinking about what early childhood educator licensure would mean for the field.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Anna, I am going to ask you to move through any of the slides that talk about the organization, because we're familiar with the organization Absolutely. What the charge

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: I am just really going to quickly going to talk about the strategic plan, because it connects to kind of my next point. So as you all know, Vermont has a new early childhood strategic plan. It is really kind of this comprehensive plan of plans that helps align agencies, partners, advocates across early childhood systems. So as you all know, Building Bright Futures focuses on more than just kind of early childhood education, or really thinking about all of the systems and programs and services that support young children and their families holistically. So nearly 200 Vermonters contributed through conversations letters and it resulted in this plan that will guide our work as a state and as an organization for the next five years. So with that said, just want to kind of reiterate, I know you all are familiar with Building Bright Futures role, but just want to make it clear that BBF doesn't actively support or oppose any specific bill. But I do want to call attention to kind of the strong alignment between the policy recommendation of the State Advisory Council Network this year related to early childhood education licensure and the goals of S206, as well as these kind of two parts on the slide here in the strategic plan that are well aligned with the goals of the bill that you all are considering today. So kind of getting more into what those goals are, I think that there are a lot of kind of areas where Building Bright Futures has heard from partners and from you all real areas of agreement and real kind of collective vision for what this looks like. I think we all agree that safe and high quality settings are a priority, that professional recognition matters and will move us kind of closer to a sustainable workforce. The clear pathways and defined expectations, as

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: you just heard from Sharon,

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: are really critical. The individual accountability has a real kind of appeal, especially kind of thinking about the significant public investment that we've made as a state in early childhood education, that families deserve clarity and transparency, and that it's critical to support our existing workforce, which you all have heard as well. And to keep thinking about what policy levers will improve access for families. I call attention to these in part because these are exactly the sort of outcomes that we continue to monitor in Building Bright Future's role in monitoring ACT 76 and the success that, like my colleagues earlier have already highlighted, we've already seen a lot of great progress because of the public investment that Vermont has really led the country in making in childcare. Those goals are also really central the strategic plan. And I think that they're goals that are really well aligned with what you are seeing proposed through S206 and through the work that OPR has done with the Sunrise Report. This, I wanted to dig into a little bit more, and I'm glad that I prepared this slide kind of hearing the conversation that occurred earlier. I think that you know, the there's been some really interesting testimony that has taken place in other committees and that you all will hear soon that really takes Vermont data and Vermont system out of context. So, you know, as your primary advisor on these issues and really thinking about the time that Vermont has spent learning a lot about high quality childcare systems and what it means to make data driven decisions in that area, I wanna make sure that I'm really clear about what we do and do not know based on that data. And one of the things I would just kind of start with is to challenge kind of the notion that we want childcare to be cheap. We don't want childcare to be cheap. We've made a lot of intentional policy decisions to ensure that it's a sustainable field. And I hear all of your concerns and I understand the political context in which we sit, in which affordability is of grave concern. And I think thinking about the real benefits of raising wages for the workforce and raising qualifications that would result in ideally raised wages from my perspective is a little bit of a values proposition for you all and just something to perhaps reconsider through different lens. So another kind of important point here is that what families pay because of the policy decisions that Vermont has made and that many of you have heard of, the price that families pay or the cost that families have related to childcare is not at all directly related anymore to the price of childcare. So there's a lot of national analysis that might put Vermont on really high, make Vermont look like childcare is really expensive here. We know that the story is a lot more nuanced and complex because of what we've done related to the childcare financial system.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I just looked at your policy brief that you sent out maybe today or yesterday, something like that. And thank you for the links to that national data. And I actually took the initiative to contact one of the researchers and said, like, why are you presenting somewhat of a skewed picture? It's implying that the cost to the family is what they're representing. And it's not, they don't represent anything about the childcare financial assistance program. And that very low income families don't pay anything for childcare in Vermont. And so it's really irritating to see

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: that misrepresented, frankly. I appreciate it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do you folks contact researchers when you

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: see We

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: do, we do. Yeah, we're in discussion with some researchers who put out analysis. I think childcare policy is a really complex area of research to communicate. As you all know, many of you studied this issue for years before you kind of got to what exactly the levers we wanted to pull as a So state there are people who would say like a price in that, like a ranking of the prices of childcare across the country are meaningful. I don't think given the decisions we've made, that's a meaningful indicator for us to think about. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Mean, was no even footnotes about any of the states that offer financial assistance to families. Yeah, the comparison we make in

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: the piece you're referencing is it's like thinking about the bill that you're gonna get at the hospital without thinking about health insurance.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. People have it and other people don't. Yeah, it just

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: irritates Agreed, agreed.

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: So you all understand the nuances there. I think similarly, and I think that Sharon shared this sentiment, we can expect realistically that the cost of childcare in Vermont, like all other costs, will continue to increase. We also want to see the workforce be one in which people not only want to work, but can afford to stay in. And to, know, the young people aren't automatically not considering it because of the wages, right? So again, I appreciate all the concerns that this proposal would lead to increased costs and just want to encourage you to think a little bit broader.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that we are. I mean, we recognize and have supported increases in wages for this workforce. And the data shows that. And the data shows the investments that are being made are actually doing that. I just think we also need to think about timing of some things. And I think that the other thing that I think everybody in the room probably knows is that the childcare contribution is not paying the full boat. And we are increasingly calling upon the general fund is being an increasing source of assistance, especially as the federal stuff is not moving in the direction that we would like to see it move. So while I think people might want to say, yeah, would we like to be seeing all of these things happen? I'm not sure we can, a state, just to be honest, afford more general fund to go into the program than is already going into the program. I'm just trying to be transparent about that. And just we do reflect that it's a broader conversation and that these things sort of stack on one another. And definitely what we're able to contribute makes a difference for what families are able to pay. And also I'm just not seeing the state able to contribute more, particularly since we made an entitlement program a couple of years ago. So think there's a

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: lot to unpack in there, I guess. Indeed. Yes.

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Yeah, so just kind of moving through this slide a little bit more and also want to call attention to kind of, again, recent testimony that's occurred in other committees and that you all will hear. Really want to encourage you to question kind of this term of childcare freedom. And if any sort of data that suggests that Vermont's regulations related to childcare, really support, again, child and family safety, make it a less kind of free market related to childcare. Those aren't terms that the partners that Vermont has established in terms of policy experts, research on early childhood education. Those are not terms that our partners use. And as you all know, we really think about family access, family affordability, and quality. And that quality, of getting to this last point, is really, childcare is expensive because it's relationship driven work. We know that the interactions that occur between children and caregivers and educators and programs, the quality of those interactions, their warmth, their responsiveness, whether or not they're developmentally appropriate, that is the heart of quality. So this proposal is really thinking critically about the qualifications of the individual that is having those interactions with children. Again, we want this work to be done by people who are well qualified, well supported, and well compensated, and who are doing this work and can afford to stay in it. Because those are the types of folks that are going to be providing the best quality care possible to our youngest and most vulnerable children. So just a couple of considerations and I will leave plenty of time for questions. We urge the committee and I've already seen kind of your lineup for the week, but we urge the committee to hear directly from the field. Like others have said, this proposal and the kind of years of work that have led to it are really coming from questions and priorities of the field in terms of what it looks like to recognize the dedication, skills and qualifications that they have. They also, as you all know, the system looks really differently today than it did even five or ten years ago. So hearing from people navigating it right now should really be a priority and is essential to getting implementation right. Like you noted, I think also thinking about the timeline and a thoughtful transition is really important. Think that those are the right questions to ask. I think the standards themselves should be consistent across settings but like has been discussed, there are really different things in terms of the capacity of different settings, namely family childcare homeowners to come under compliance with new qualification requirements. So what does it look like to, and I think the current draft of the bill already kind of asked these questions and thinks about this with the kind of different pathways, but what does it look like to make sure that the qualifications are really responsive to different needs? And what does it look like to offer really good transition support? And I think you all are asking good questions about how to make sure that there's sufficient time and sufficient financial resources that don't become a barrier. Okay. And then finally on this slide, supply access and workforce continuity. I think like Sharon said, I think in the long term we believe that the theory of the case that licensure will strengthen access will make this a more appealing field for people to enter is one that we believe in and the research really backs. That being said, I think in the interim, you all are doing the right kind of thinking about how to make sure that since supply and demand gaps continue to exist, particularly related to infant and toddler care, how are we making sure that programs have what they need and are able to recruit and retain the workforce amidst this transition? I think there's other barriers that exist in the field that you all are familiar with, like the fingerprint supported background checks challenge that we've been navigating for quite some time now. Barriers like that are worth continuing to make sure that we address so that they don't become an additional factor in a transition like this. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: when you talk about additional factors, I'm just wondering, has Building Bright Futures been tracking I know you've been tracking pre K, and I know the pre K development grant. We're seeing a movement. And the reason I talk about pre K is because these things are all interrelated when we talk about viability of the profession and the businesses and all of that. What we are seeing is more and more school districts engaging and applying for CCFAP so that they become a more viable option for families so that parents don't or guardians don't have to come pick up their child after two or three hours of pre K and then move them to another setting. So we're seeing more and more school districts provide or being proposing to their communities to provide essentially full day, full week care. And we are seeing and we know that having private pre K makes the infant and toddler sustainable in child care. And so I guess what I am wondering out loud is whether or not the increases that we're seeing in school districts doing this over here, and we're seeing a higher proportion of families choosing public pre K than was evident a few years ago. That all adds to the potential instability or raising the instability of our childcare, not only the workforce, but the businesses as they exist now. And so when y'all are being really supportive of this move, are you taking things like that into consideration? So the environment in which these businesses are operating?

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Yes. And I think that that's a good flag and a piece that will be important to continue to monitor. You pointed out that there's more kind of data work being done with the preschool development grant because the kind of data that we have on where children are in pre K, how much they're receiving, kind of transitions in the day that they might be experiencing between different types of programs is not a current strength of ours. I think that anecdotally another thing to consider in relationship with the kind of trend you pointed out is there's also, we're hearing a lot about private center based programs and family childcare homes who were pre qualified pre K providers who are not interested in participating anymore in part because of the higher reimbursement rates that are available to them through CCFAP and the complexity of participating in both programs and having families who, if they participate in both have a part time certificate through CCFAP, right? You all have started to explore kind of the complexities of those two systems. I think frankly, like if we were, and this goes back perhaps to like the farmhouse metaphor, but if we're building an early childhood system from the ground up, I don't think that we would necessarily have all the different kind of components and systems that we have now. So that's something to consider. But I don't know that the kind of the shifting landscape in pre K in terms of more children participating in public schools necessarily changes how we would think about the importance of quality across early childhood programs, including for infants.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, mean, of course, we want quality, although we want to be supporting quality programs regardless of where children are receiving their early education. I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that there are a lot of things that are impacting the landscape right now, and there's a lot of moving pieces. And a lot of those pieces haven't actually landed yet, pre K being one of the big ones. So thanks.

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Yeah. So with that, I think from Building Bright Futures perspective and based on, again, what we're hearing from our partners and the network, from early childhood educators, I think that the question isn't so much whether Vermont pursues this, it's how to do it well. And I hear the concerns about it being, it being risks associated with being the first state in the country pursue this. From a bigger picture national early childhood policy lens, this is absolutely the direction that people are heading. I understand that it's still scary to step out and be the first, but I just want to name like this is, again, like my partners at VermontAYC said, this is not an anomaly. This is not something crazy we're considering. Is the way of kind of high quality early childhood systems moving into the future. So I just encourage you all as you continue to hear testimony and think about kind of the proposal in front of you. I think thinking about continuing to ask some of the questions you've asked today around the transition timelines being realistic and being a good fit regardless of kind of what setting you're thinking about. Are the supports that OPR and others are laying out, are they sufficient from like a financial, technical, perspective? And I think CDD will be a great partner in kind of thinking through some of that as well. Has workforce data being monitored in a way that will allow for course correction if needed? So I think you all have asked a lot of good questions about what our current workforce makeup looks like. We certainly have kind of the most recent data from CDD that is on the workforce. They released it in January. And it kind of talks about, looks at the workforce from 2022 to 2024. So I think it's probably a little bit more recent than what you all found and what's in the OPR report. But just thinking about what systems we have in place to continue to monitor the workforce as a proposal like this is implemented. I think that there are ways, similar conversations like you all were having related to pre K, how are we checking up along the way when we're making a big policy change? So that pretty much wraps it up. I'm happy to answer any questions and would encourage you all to reach out as you hear testimony from other new partners, just because we're happy to be a resource about the best and most high quality data. Thank you. Thank you, Anna. Questions for Anna.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We really appreciate you know, BBF being a reliable source of information. And that's something in some of the other work that we do in this committee that we frankly don't have. And it's independent, which is also good. And it helps us tremendously in sort of setting forth a future path and then evaluating whether or not the path that we set out on is achieving what we thought we were doing. So I wish we had sort of a similar PBF in each one of our major areas would be fantastic. But we don't. We'll be

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: grateful for the one we have.

[Anne Brouillette (Policy & Program Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Project for another day.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know, right? Any questions or comments for Anna? Okay, awesome. You helped us get back on time.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I'm happy. I can't miss that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. All right. I appreciate that very much. So tomorrow, folks, we are going to focus in on totally different topics. Tomorrow, we're doing S-one 193, Forensic Facility. We're going be hearing from the outreach director at Green Mountain Self Advocates, an individual with autism who speaks for individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities. And then we'll be spending most of the day on tobacco after that, on S-one 198. And then we're back on 02:06 on Thursday. So thank you all. We're all done, Linda. Oh, just before we have been some documents to come in while testimony was happening. So take a look at the website. And you can find the fiscal note on this under if you look up the bill and then you look

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: under documents. You found it? Meet Joelson? Yeah. That's what I went downstairs. You found it? Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. There you go. Crazy crazy.