Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Okay, welcome back, folks. Thank you, Mary and Nicole, for bearing with us. We needed to take a brief break. Mary, welcome. It's nice to have you here as we are continuing our discussion about S206. And we're very happy to have a national perspective on where this is going. So thank you very much and the floor is yours.

[Mary Harrill (National Association for the Education of Young Children)]: Great. Well, thank you. Good morning, everyone. It is really good to be with you and thank you on behalf of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, I'm gonna call it NAICI, for letting us have an opportunity to meet with you and share our support of Senate Bill two zero six, provide some national context about the ECE profession, and also to address some of the concerns that have been raised about the bill just over the course of deliberations. We submitted written testimony yesterday, so I will draw from that but not read everything in there. Wanted to share some of these perspectives and I'm happy to answer any questions afterwards as well. But we have been very proud to be a resource for and to support Vermont AEYC, the Let's Grow Kids Action Network, and the Office of Professional Regulation in their efforts on behalf of, and most importantly, in collaboration with early childhood educators working across all ECE settings in the state to establish professional licensure for early childhood educators. By way of background, NACI, we're a professional membership organization. Our members are early childhood educators, ECE faculty, students, advocates, allies across the country. Our mission is to promote high quality early learning for each and every child, birth through age eight, by connecting policy, practice, research. We believe one of the primary ways to ensure quality in ECE programs is by supporting and investing in the ECE workforce. Hence, our work around the ECE profession. Our work in this area in advancing the ECE profession is guided by the unifying framework for the early childhood education profession. This is a foundational document that was published in 2020 and is the product of a multi year initiative to create a clear consensus driven vision and roadmap for a recognized and well supported ECE profession. A task force of 15 ECE national organizations, which included NACI, Education and Labor Unions, Head Start organizations representing family childcare, infants and toddlers, those working with infants and toddlers, and ECE higher ed, all of whom represent educators working with children birth through age eight across all ECE settings. We engaged with and gathered feedback from tens of thousands of early childhood educators over the course of four years to recommend a proposed structure for the ECE profession. As with other professions, the components of our profession include a very clear identity for who the practitioner is and a common nomenclature, and the unifying framework uses the term early childhood educator. I'll talk more about that a little bit later. It includes a designation of a core set of practitioner competencies, and in this case, it's the professional standards and competencies for early childhood educators. It includes a proposed structure of three designations within the ECE profession. That's the ECE one, the ECE two, and the ECE three designations. Each of those has a proposed level of professional preparation attached to it, as well as a specific scope of practice. It also includes professional licensure for early childhood educators, both to support accountability for the individual's practice, as well as to support portability of credentials across states and ECE settings. The fifth component is around responsibilities for professional preparation programs, ECE employers, states and federal governments in supporting this profession. There's also a set of recommendations around compensation structures that reflect the competencies and the credentials that early childhood educators hold. Finally, there is a recommendation around a professional governance body to support implementation of the unifying framework and oversee this profession. Since the release of the unifying framework and as a member of the Commission on Professional Excellence in Early Childhood Education, which is that professional governance body, NACI's work has included efforts to support and elevate the implementation of the recommendations within the unifying framework. In this work, Vermont is a leader, but it is certainly not alone in this work. There is exciting progress across communities and states that it's including but not limited to states adopting the professional standards and competencies. We've included some examples in our testimony around Michigan and Rhode Island, Iowa, South Carolina. This year, Delaware issued an RFP to develop an implementation plan to establish professional licensure for early childhood educators. Connecticut, DC, Minnesota, New Mexico, Virginia have all prioritized policies and made significant investments that support and develop early childhood education as a respected and compensated profession. DC, Florida, Missouri are aligning to the EC one, two, and three designations. In our written comments, we talk a lot more about state progress, provide examples, and link to the unifying framework. You can find out a lot more information testimony. But I want to speak specifically and more directly to the context of ECE professional licensure. The childcare landscape in which early childhood educators operate in states across this country complex and it's fragmented. Unlike public K-twelve system, which provides free access to education and care for all age eligible children and youth, there is no currently existing parallel system for our country's youngest children. As a result, and by necessity, childcare and early learning for children birth through age five is a mixed delivery system with programs that are based in homes, centers, and in schools. Early childhood educators provide an essential service of supporting each and every child in their programs to be safe, happy, healthy, and learning. Yet they're not currently or fairly recognized, supported, compensated nor held accountable for their practice with these young children and their families. It's certainly not within a context of a professional licensure system that the public relies upon to protect them, their interests, and their investments across a wide range of industries. Over the last few years, Vermont has made very significant and important public investments to address access to childcare in the state. Senate Bill two zero six and other initiatives build on this to further address the quality and stability of the EC workforce. Protecting the public and public investments means working to ensure a floor of quality where parents can choose from any early childhood setting that meets their family's needs. Knowing that the individuals who are licensed to practice there have a deep understanding of how children learn and develop, and they have the complex skills and knowledge that support them in effectively practicing with a diverse array of young children and their families and including those with special needs. Ultimately, we believe that professional licensure can be part of an effort to build supply rather than inhibit it, including in family childcare homes. We see professional licensure as providing a way to both recognize and hold accountable early childhood educators for their practice with young children, formalizing and confirming consistent expectations for educators' professional preparation and their competencies, and acknowledging recognizing educators for meeting those expectations. I want to talk about some of the concerns that have been raised with the bill and start with the concern that's been raised about using the term early childhood educator. I want to provide some history behind why this term is important to the ECE profession. Early childhood education, it's a well established and defined period of child development. In fact, the National Institute of Medicine's 2015 report, Transforming the Workforce for Child Care Birth through Age eight, synthesizes decades of research that documents this and the documents, the specialized skills, knowledge, and professional preparation that's required of individuals supporting the development of learning in young children. When NAICI and 14 other national ACE organizations embarked on the initiative that eventually led to the unifying framework, we quickly realized that the first step in creating a unified vision for the profession in collaboration with educators was establishing our identity. That first decision cycle in that initiative focused on solidifying a name for who we are as practitioners and our specific set of responsibilities. Many terms were proposed and debated and early childhood educators where we landed. That term addresses the specific focus of the educators work and indicates that there is expertise needed and held as part of this role. As with other professions, by using this term consistently across settings and states, the hope is to support the public's recognition of the work and the role of early childhood educators and to support portability of credentials. The term early childhood educator, it's not copyrighted by our profession and nor is it by the K-twelve community, which also like in Vermont, uses terms like early childhood educator license or endorsement. Just as we respect the right of K-twelve teachers and licensing boards to establish their own licensure process and naming convention that same respect and autonomy, there are other professions that share the same terminology. For example, in the medical profession, are doctors and nurses across a multitude of disciplines, They have found ways to be clear about who they represent and their specific expertise in their licensure and professional systems and settings. Likewise, the term doctor, it's not used by the medical professional alone. We know there are doctors across many professions, including academia, science, the arts, beyond, and to provide clarity to the public and within their own professions. The degrees and professional licenses they hold clearly state the discipline and expertise they represent and also include the name of the body that's issuing that license. We expect that the license credential issued under this proposed ECE professional licensure system will do the same, just like Vermont's K-twelve teaching credential clearly states that it's issued by the Standards Board and states where that individual is eligible to practice with the license. We also know that there's been a concern raised about including that ECE three designation in the ECE profession. We agree with Vermont AEYC and the Office of Professional Regulation that recognizing that ECE three designation, the individual that holds the EC baccalaureate degree as described in the bill doesn't duplicate nor supplant the ECE teacher license that the Standards Board operates. The ECE three designation in this bill recognizes the large number of individuals who are not included in the purview of the Standards Board. There are many early childhood educators who hold baccalaureate degrees who work in ECE settings that are not part of the pre K public school system that the agency of education oversees, including in family childcare homes and community centers. Based on the data from the Vermont Child Development Division, Vermont AEYC estimates that nearly half of Vermont's current early childhood education workforce already holds a bachelor's or advanced degree. That is a significant group of individuals at that ECE three designation that if not included in this proposed professional licensure system, would also not be included in the current teacher licensure system operated by the Agency of Education. This bill is specifically focused on establishing professional licensure for early childhood educators working in settings regulated by the Division of Child Development, not the Agency of Education. This is articulated throughout the bill Early childhood educators working in birth through age five settings regulated by the Division of Child Development want a way to be recognized for their expertise and held accountable for their competencies and practice that are specific to working with children birth through age five. They don't want to be retrofitted into a professional licensure system that's designed for educators working in public, K-twelve schools and held accountable for competencies and practices that are specific to working in the public schools. A final concern that's been raised about the bill has been there's a concern about regulating early childhood educators could raise the cost of childcare. It's an understandable assumption, but I want to share some research that we've conducted that actually points every state is facing childcare shortages. One of the most common ways they respond to these shortages is by reducing staff qualifications, increasing ratios, and increasing group size allowances. In 2020, NACI and the Center for American Progress studied the impact of these decisions by states to deregulate childcare in this way. We found that the solution that they were putting forward was actually having the opposite of its intended effect. In fact, when states reduced qualifications and or increased ratios, this led to more early childhood educators leaving the field. They were burnt out managing larger groups of children and they were frustrated to be working with individuals not prepared for the job. This increased early childhood educator turnover, it exacerbated workforce shortages, it disrupted continuity of care for children, and it increased the costs for childcare programs. Through our research, we found that there was no correlation between the strictness of state regulations and the state levels of childcare supply, indicating that more stringent regulation was unlikely to have an impact on the childcare supply. In addition, we have conducted multiple ECE workforce surveys over the years to check-in on educators and childcare programs well-being. When we ask early childhood educators what would incentivize them to stay in the workforce, better and fair compensation is always at the top of the list, understandable and has to be prioritized, but it is closely followed by better working conditions, including reasonable child teacher ratios and working with colleagues and directors who are well prepared for their responsibilities. Our research on deregulation in the EC workforce coupled with the unifying framework speaks to the importance of having a regulated EC workforce that includes clear, consistent expectations for professional preparation and that holds early childhood educators accountable to the public. Indeed, this research as well as Vermont AEYC's findings through its work with early childhood educators also shows that there's general support for establishing professional licensure so long as it's accompanied by reasonable timelines for educators to meet those expectations, and so long as that there are resources in place to help early childhood educators access the credentials and the degrees. The Vermont bill addresses this through transition licenses and providing extended time for educators. There has been extensive work underway for many years to support Vermont early childhood educators in accessing credentials and degrees in ECE higher ed programs through scholarships, through credit for prior learning, college navigators, other supports. It's a real testament to the collective impact of public investment, higher education, Vermont AEYC, and early childhood educator themselves that nearly half of the birth through five EC workforce holds a baccalaureate degree or higher. That's not common in other states, and Vermont is well positioned to establish professional licensure system for the EC workforce and support the EC workforce in successfully obtaining those licenses. I want to close by emphasizing that Vermont has made extraordinary public investments in early childhood education, and it's important for those investments that are safeguarded, they're protected just like our children, families, and educators. Professional licensure is a path toward that goal. Second, the reality is that the status quo of early childhood education workforce, it's not working. While it's vitally important to address and mitigate concerns about the future impact of, for example, licensing fees on early childhood educators, the reality is that educators are spending valuable time and effort often without any associated benefit to or impact on their respect, their status, their ability to advance in their field or compensation. Professional licensure is a path towards changing that reality. Given the uniqueness of early childhood education and the importance of early childhood educators to children, families, and the economy, it's critical that any professional licensure pathway be thoughtfully and intentionally designed and implemented with timelines, resources, and support that recognize both this current ECE workforce as well as our future ECE profession. We really appreciate how Senate Bill two zero six addresses this. We hold deep admiration and respect for the educators throughout Vermont and the leadership of Vermont EEYC, the Office of Professional Regulation, the Vermont General Assembly and others for grappling with difficult questions and considerations in the course of moving this bill forward. We thank you again for this opportunity to share perspectives.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, Mary. And thank you, committee members. You'll find on our website even more extensive information from the National Association. So please do review it and the links that are provided there. Questions for Ms. Harrell here. Thank you for providing some information and background about what's happening in other states because that's sometimes states are a little reluctant to be the first to do something, especially when it's we're venturing out, tipping our toes into something that is new. And you did a good job, as have previous witnesses, of identifying the growth in the field, the professionalism of the field, the impact on young minds and why it's important. So I really appreciate that. And Representative Bishop, go ahead.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: Thank you for the testimony. Just a

[Speaker 0]: couple of

[Representative Doug Bishop]: questions. You listed a handful of states, Pennsylvania, Washington, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa, Rhode Island, and South Carolina that have adopted the, if I understood correctly, the ECE one, two, and three standards. They've done that outside of licensure, is that correct?

[Mary Harrill (National Association for the Education of Young Children)]: So they have, so there are states, the states you list, they have adopted the professional standards and competencies. There are other states that have been aligning to those ECE one, two, or three designations, sometimes through their career ladders. Washington DC is an example where they have aligned this and moved towards advancing compensation to those ECE designations. We find with the unifying framework, are a lot of states can't move everything that's recommended in there around establishing the profession at the same time, but they are moving the pieces where there is opportunity and funding. This is where Vermont, I think, has been doing deep work for ten years now around elevating the ECE professional working with educators. I think the combination of the public investment, the work with early childhood educators and the capacity of the Office of Professional Regulation really set the state up well to establish professional licensure.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: In any of these states that have moved closest to the ECE one, two, and three structure, is there any data yet as to whether it positively or negatively impacted the size of the workforce?

[Mary Harrill (National Association for the Education of Young Children)]: Sure. I think it is early days for that as they're moving toward this. One of the things that these states and communities have been doing is the intention is not to reduce the workforce. I think we're all aware of the shortages across the country. What the states have been doing, they have been working carefully to think about how to recognize the current early childhood workforce within those designations. That's some of the work that Vermont has been doing well as they think about how do we support existing workforce. There have been either transition periods built into recognizing the workforce or thinking through equivalencies and exemptions that might apply for the existing workforce to help them be recognized within those ECE one, two, and three designations. That's work that I think is also part of what is happening in Vermont as well. We are deeply aware of the workforce shortages and the unifying framework and the work in Vermont is very much about how do we bring the workforce with us into this.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: A final question, the Office of Professional Regulation Sunrise review assessment, as I read it, really looked at two significant drivers for moving towards licensure, Very important and laudable goals of ensuring noting the importance of high quality early childhood education and the impact that can have on children, and also the strength the accountability for individuals who work within the field. On the latter point, is NASI familiar with, any work that other states have done to ensure individual accountability?

[Mary Harrill (National Association for the Education of Young Children)]: So this is what I think there are states that are looking at this. Minnesota, Delaware, or two that come to mind. I think one of the realities that we find across states is that the challenges is that the regulations that individuals working in birth through five settings are typically not regulated. What's regulated in that space are the settings themselves. What we find across states in regulations is that there are a multitude of regulations with varying requirements related to staff qualifications, depending on the setting they work in, depending on the funding stream, what federal or state that guides that. That creates a lot of confusion for the educators working in those spaces because as they move across those different spaces, there are different sets of requirements. It reduces portability as educators move across states, and it's confusing to the programs themselves as they have to navigate the, differing requirements. Part of our hope and what states are looking at now as they're modernizing their regulations is trying to pull out focus on the individual staff and incorporate that into a professional licensure system or separate recognition system so that the regulations are clear about expectations for individuals and consistent across the settings. Delaware is one they, I mentioned in our remarks that they've just issued an RFP to establish an implementation plan for professional licensure. It is in part because of some of the challenges they've been finding with the way that the current childcare regulations are set up, that it's not providing that clarity both to programs, to families, or to the educators themselves around expectations, and they want to have a much more consistency in the state so that educators can move across settings more easily, and so that it's also clear to the public that individuals are licensed to practice.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: That would provide the clarity as far as the qualifications, but are there any states that have done work to put more sunlight on any the workforce with respect to any problematic employees within the workforce so that someone can't be the one responsible for a center being written up, have no personal responsibility, if you will, assigned and move on to the next center. Are there states that are looking at that level of individual accountability?

[Mary Harrill (National Association for the Education of Young Children)]: Well, I think that's part of the case for this, that it's accountability for both the practice and also to have a system in place that can hold individuals accountable if they are not practicing appropriately or when these kinds of incidents happen. Because right now, when that happens, unlike in a licensure board across any profession, that would be reported to the licensure board and that individual would be sanctioned and not allowed to practice. There would be a record for all of the related settings or potential hiring authorities to understand that there's been a violation. But that doesn't exist right now on the ECE side working in those birth through five settings. That's also part of what we would hope the professional licensure system would allow is that type of accountability.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mary. Appreciate all the time and attention you've given to that and your collaboration with our remote partners here.

[Mary Harrill (National Association for the Education of Young Children)]: Thank you. And thank you for allowing us to share some perspectives.

[Speaker 0]: Welcome. Nicole, it's nice to see you. Welcome to House Student Services.

[Nicole Miller (Executive Director, Vermont Afterschool)]: Nice to see you all too.

[Speaker 0]: We do have your testimony on our website. So why don't you go ahead and give us your comments? Then I have a couple of questions and others might as well.

[Nicole Miller (Executive Director, Vermont Afterschool)]: Absolutely. Well, good morning. And thank you again all so much for all the work that your committee does with you and investment that you do for Vermont's communities, families, children. So for the record, I'm Nicole Miller. I'm the executive director of Vermont After School. You all know that we're a nonprofit organization that works to strengthen after school and summer programs, empower youth, and expand access so that any child or youth in Vermont who wants to attend an after school or summer program can do so. Traditionally, we tend to focus on the K-twelve system. That's how things have been situated. So that impacts my comments on S206. I do really appreciate that you all have invited me to testify today and to share and to make sure that the after school perspective is a part of these conversations. So I really appreciate that. From our understanding of the bill, it appears not to significantly affect after school providers. There are several spots where after school providers are called out as exempt. And so, you know, we definitely do not you know, this isn't because we don't value the work of after school and summer program professionals. Part of it in my mind is about the complexity of the afterschool field that is operating across multiple funding streams, multiple types of entities, across several agencies, and some not even regulated by an agency, depending on where how many hours and what they're operating as. And so, you know, based on my reading of the bill and in my conversations with some of the partners, like from AEYC and others that have been working on this bill, after school providers are largely exempt. And so, you know, we are fairly neutral on this this bill. I will say that that one of my questions was around those that are working in center based childcare and preschool programs that are serving the whole spectrum from birth to age 12 that might be working with school agers specifically. In most cases, I would imagine that those professionals are also working during the day with early childhood or with early in an early childhood education per classroom. And so we understand that those would would be not exempt from this licensure bill and that they would need to be part of that system that's being potentially stood up. So again, you know, we're fairly neutral in this bill because our understanding of it is that the after school providers are are essentially exempt. But I'm happy to answer any questions that you all

[Speaker 0]: have. So I'm curious if you would find it as an advantage to have, you know, potential access to bless you. To have potential access to individuals, would you would you avail yourself? Or do you think you the programs around the state, the after school programs around the state would avail themselves of the opportunity to check out a website to find out if potential employees had gone through this process. Do you feel like it could have a positive impact on the workforce in the after school space?

[Nicole Miller (Executive Director, Vermont Afterschool)]: I appreciate the question. For me, that's a hard question to answer because of the complexity. Right. So when we look at the after school and summer field, only a portion of those are in the regulated system. And so I don't know. I guess I'm not sure how how, like, a program director would would use something like that if they're not already embedded in the the license system. So that's that's part of my uncertainty, frankly, is is I don't know to what level of engagement, you know, a a program director of a 21 c program would would use something like that because oftentimes those site leaders are overseen by a full time program director that's across multiple sites. Oftentimes, are already school based employees that are working within those systems already. So I feel like that would then be duplicative. So I hope that answers your question a bit.

[Speaker 0]: It yeah. I mean, I I I think that it could be a resource. Let's just put it that way in for directors in terms of when they're looking to hire staff that might not already have an AOE designation as an educator and license. Because not all the people who work in after school or summer programs are certified licensed teachers. So I think it could be a benefit in the space that you're concerned with. Any other questions for Nicole or any questions about how this could be a benefit or not? Yeah. Thank you, Nicole. We appreciate it. We always wanna make sure after school gets an opportunity to talk about anything that's impacting youth.

[Nicole Miller (Executive Director, Vermont Afterschool)]: We greatly appreciate that. And thank you and hope you all have a great rest of your day.

[Speaker 0]: All right. Thanks so much.

[Representative Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Bye bye.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. And we is signed on. So welcome Caitlin to the House Human Services Committee. We really appreciate you being here. And I know it's a little earlier out in California, so and hopefully a little warmer than it is here today. But we really appreciate you being here to give us your perspective on the concept of this licensure of early childhood education professionals.

[Caitlin McLean (Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, UC Berkeley)]: Well, thank you so much for having me. It's great to be here. It's not that warm yet, but it will be warm later. And I promise I've had my teeth, so I'm mostly functional this morning. It's little bit early. But just to, you know, state for the record, my name is Caitlin McLean, and I'm director of multi state and international programs at the Center for the Study of Childcare Employment. And we're based at the University of California in Berkeley. And our research center has studied issues related to the preparation, support and compensation of early childhood educators across the country for over twenty five years now. So today, the purpose of my testimony is really to provide information about how Vermont's S two zero six bill fits within the broader context of efforts to professionalize the early care and education field across the country. And I want to start by just sort of Probably summarizing at this point. I'm sure you've heard several of these aspects already, but just sort of summarizing some of the recent efforts to advance early childhood educator qualifications. And then I want to talk a little bit about the specific role of individual licensure. And I'll end with just some recommendations from our center again based on our twenty five years of research in this area. The first thing I want to highlight is about a decade ago in 2015, a group of leading experts who are advising the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine published a consensus study report called Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth through Age eight: A Unifying Foundation. And I'm sure you've heard this report mentioned because it really was a seminal report for our field. It summarized the latest science of child development, and it developed a series of recommendations for developing a workforce of early childhood educators who can deliver high quality early learning experiences for children birth through age eight. Very importantly, this report recognised that young children's health development and early learning experiences really provide the foundation for leaner learning and really lifelong success. And because of that, they also recognised that the work of providing early care and education is important and complex. And so the adults who are engaged in providing these services really do need to be properly prepared and supported. At the same time, they recognize that the existing fragmented system of early care and education in The US does not sufficiently or consistently acknowledge early childhood educators as a unified workforce with a common knowledge base, nor does it support their preparation and their skill development. And yet this is such a crucial workforce. So the consensus report really recommended a move toward greater coherence in qualification requirements, credentialing and licensure, and over time to transition to a minimum expectation of a bachelor's degree for lead educators working with young children from birth to age eight. And the explicit purpose of this was to bring the preparation of early childhood educators more in line with the science of child development. That said, this transformative vision contrasts sharply with the current legacy of The US early childhood system that has arisen over many decades and frankly is rooted in biases against and exploitation of women and people of color. The current system continues to undervalue and therefore undermine the essential work of early childhood educators due to misguided and outdated assumptions about the skills needed to work with young children. So as a result, many early childhood educators today face a lack of respect, low wages and pervasive economic insecurity. And not surprisingly, programs struggle to recruit and retain staff. But we recognize that we cannot continue with this current exploitative system, a system that doesn't work for kids. It doesn't work for parents, and it doesn't work for early childhood educators. So many national and state leaders within early care and education have been working toward that transformative vision outlined by the National Academies a decade ago. You've already heard from the National Association for the Education of Young Children, or NACI, about the national collaborative that came together to establish the unifying framework for the early childhood education profession. And I would just want to highlight again the importance of this work is really to simplify and align professional pathways within the early care and education field, which to date have been fragmented and frankly confusing for both for those within and beyond the early care and education field. And that this work by this national collaborative really built on decades of work To move toward clear and uniform standards for working with young Children. I also want to highlight a couple of states like California and Louisiana. Who have already taken their own steps toward issuing permits or certificates that both recognize early childhood educators skills and authorize them to practice. So in California, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, which oversees the state's teacher certification and licensure system for public school teachers, also issues child development permits, are required to teach in publicly funded early care and education programs. And then similarly, Louisiana's Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, which again oversees the state's teacher certification and licensure for public school teachers, also oversees their ancillary early childhood certificate, which is similar to California required of lead teachers and publicly funded early care and education programs. I also want to mention in beyond just the requirements and the qualification standards, many states have increased their investments in developing a pipeline of qualified educators by providing necessary financial supports. This is an area where Vermont already shines. The nationally renowned teach early childhood scholarship program currently operates in 20 plus states, including Vermont, and this is critical for helping students avoid loan debt that can drive educators out of the field. Similarly, a number of states, again including Vermont, been investing in apprenticeship programs which can provide classroom based instruction. The point of this is that because of these long running efforts, the current early care and education workforce is not starting from scratch. Nationally, the majority of early childhood educators have a college degree and are highly knowledgeable about their craft. And these patterns are similar in Vermont, where 58% of staff with verified credentials have a college degree at the associate's or higher, according to a recent report by the Department for Children and Families. I also want to briefly talk about the role of individual licensure. The research has been very clear that the most important aspect of high quality early care and education is the educator and their practices with Children. Yet our current early care and education regulatory system continues to prioritize regulation of the facility rather than the practice of the individuals working with Children. And this is in contrast to other professions, particularly those working with vulnerable populations such as nurses and paramedics, which require individuals to hold a license demonstrating that they meet minimum standards necessary for their role. And as a result of this lack of attention to individual licensure. Licenses for childcare sites often specify increasingly minute and detailed requirements related to physical space, materials and other aspects of the early care and education program, often with a high degree of required documentation. And the idea behind individual licensure is that potentially some of this other type of regulation could be either reduced or streamlined once early childhood educators are individually licensed and trusted to follow the best practices of their profession. In terms of recommendations, Vermont now has the opportunity to build on Act 76, which is nationally renowned, and take the next step toward a system in which early childhood educators are seen, valued and respected as a critical profession. Recommendations from our research center, again, building on both our research and what we've seen more broadly in the field is anytime that new qualification requirements are enacted, it's really important to think about the strategy both for the incoming workforce, but also the existing workforce. There are a variety of supports that have been shown to be helpful. But a couple that I really want to highlight that I don't think get enough attention are not only the financial aspect, of course, you know, don't want folks taking on debt to be able to reach these higher qualifications, but also the need for flexibility. You know, if you're working and also going to school, then you may need to attend class at night or over the weekend. Having classes at community locations and really importantly, cohort models. One of the things that can often be a challenge is folks may be newer to these processes or even newer to higher education. And so sometimes the barriers are about lack of information or lack of confidence and things that actually having a community around you can be really, really supportive. So I want to make sure that that's highlighted. I also want to note that the diversity of the early care and education workforce nationally is a key strength and is something that we want to preserve. And so really being attentive to historic barriers to higher education and thinking about how can you make sure that folks who come from historically oppressed racial and ethnic groups or folks who speak English as a second language have targeted supports to help them through this process as well. I also want to reiterate that providing debt free access to education is necessary but is not sufficient. We need adequate public funding for programs to increase the wages of early educators and improve their working conditions in order to make sure that educators continue to be attracted to this work both now and in the future, and also that current educators can stay in their jobs. And there are plenty of examples across the country. There are states like Minnesota and Illinois, as well as localities like the District Of Columbia, who have been experimenting with regular payments to programs that essentially provide foundational funding to improve compensation. So again, I really feel like Vermont is one of the best position states to take this next step. And I hope that you'll consider that you're really, nationally renowned public investment in early care and education. Is the success of that is going to be contingent on how well you support your early childhood educators. And so I also do want to acknowledge that all change is difficult, even good change, but that change really is necessary if we want a better future for our kids and our families. And I want to thank you all so much for all the work that you have done even to get to this point and to consider this. And I want to thank you again for the opportunity to speak. And I look forward to answering any questions that you might have.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you very much, Caitlin. Questions from committee members? Again, we appreciate the information sort of confirming some of the additional testimony we've gotten from other folks about, you know, what are some of the activities in other states and the importance of the importance of recognizing this field in a professional way. So thank you for your research on that. And go ahead, Representative Maguire.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: Yeah, thank you very much for that report and that research. That was very informative. Just one quick question. Does this still have the potential of raising childcare costs within the state of Oman over a period of time?

[Caitlin McLean (Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, UC Berkeley)]: I think there's definitely the potential, but I don't think we fully know. Right? Because while there should, frankly, be increased costs for high quality early education and qualified educators who are paid professional wages. There's also the possibility that you might reduce costs in other ways. So a couple of examples that just come to mind are, one, my point about trade offs and regulations. So there are regulations in place now that may increase costs for folks that as you introduce individual licensure, you realize, oh, actually this is unnecessary and sort of duplicates something that we've already got going on here. That could essentially be a wash. The other thing I really want to highlight is one of the biggest challenges in this field is high turnover, and that's a huge cost for programs. It's a huge cost for our field because if folks go and get trained and then turn out turns out they're not being supported on the job and so they leave, then new folks need to be trained and then gain that experience. It's a cost when folks leave their jobs. But from our research and others, we know how important the actual working conditions and economic well-being of the educator are for turnover. So not a shock to anybody, right? But we are all going to our jobs because we expect money in return and we want to be able to live off of our our work. So that is why I emphasize this need to increase wages, because if folks cannot feed themselves and their families, they are not going to stay in this work no matter how much they love it and they want to. But there are things beyond wages and benefits that affect whether folks stay in their job or not. And a lot of it comes down to staffing patterns and the folks that they're working with on the job. And so. I think the hope here is that if you prepare folks better before they go into the work, then they shouldn't feel so overwhelmed and frustrated on the job because they're working with other folks who are knowledgeable about what they're supposed to be doing. They themselves have already gotten the preparation that they need. And so there's that element of I know how to do this. I'm supported by my coworkers. I don't necessarily feel the need to leave. As turnover is reduced, it actually has like a virtuous cycle. We have an old report of ours that's called turnover begets turnover because somebody leaves that causes more overwhelm difficulty in the working environment. Someone else leaves, someone else leaves and so on. So I know that was sort of a long winded answer, to say, I don't think we can just assume if this happens, costs will go up because there there's reason to believe that if this happens, other costs will be reduced.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: I just follow-up quickly. Thank you so much for that.

[Representative Zon Eastes]: The reason why I just want to point that out to and the other

[Representative Eric Maguire]: thing I wanna ask was as replacing EC license share underneath our office of professional regulations, which from my understanding, does not we'd be the first in the in the country to actually place the licensure under your your state's op OPR. And we're creating, you know, an independent board with enforcement authority. We are requiring individuals, not programs, to hold a license to practice. Do you believe in your opinion would be very, very helpful in your guidance with this. Do you believe that we may be being too aggressive in treating early childhood education as a licensed profession rather than a regulated occupation? This is where I see the potential of possible childcare costs going up because now we're just your thoughts on that.

[Caitlin McLean (Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, UC Berkeley)]: Yeah, I mean, would love to give an opinion, but I don't think I know enough about the details, especially in Vermont, about the difference between individualized insurance and regulated occupation. So I'm sorry, I don't think I can comment on that.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: All right. No, thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: I think it sort of begs the question, maybe this is where you're going, Representative Maguire, and not related to Caitlin's testimony, but also to represent Bishop's questions earlier about, and what some other states are doing in terms of adopting EC one, two and three in their regulatory environment for the programs.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: Not in their licensure.

[Speaker 0]: Not in their licensure, right.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: That's where we're kind of unique at this time.

[Speaker 0]: That's what's being proposed, yeah. Thank you so much for being here, Caitlin, and for your early morning on the West Coast. We appreciate it very much and the work that you've done in the field. Thank you.

[Caitlin McLean (Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, UC Berkeley)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, folks, we are going to do, I don't know if we call it a 180 or not, we're gonna, for the next five minutes or so, wanna get a sense on S-one 193, which is the forensic facility discussion. We are going to have a couple of, I think final witnesses on that this afternoon. We're hearing from, hold on, I don't wanna misstate what the name of it is, the and Reconciliation Commission. And we are also hearing from a victim of a situation for which this bill is proposing to be a solution. Connery, you're welcome to join us.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: Might be presumptuous, Josh.

[Representative Zon Eastes]: You guys are nicer than

[Speaker 0]: some solutions. Right in, there's lots to do on Zoom. You just can't. So this is committee discussion. We're gonna be trying to do some markup on it. It's not markup because we don't have the bill, but making recommendations. As you saw, forwarded corrections and institutions sort of where they're going with this bill. We're continuing to have cross committee dialogue around this. And so we've heard quite a bit of testimony already on this, both pro and con. And I just am reminding people that our jurisdiction is not for folks with mental health challenges. It's for folks with mental or intellectual disabilities, as well as brain injuries and older Vermonters or others with dementia, which are also, and people with substance use disorders. Those are all included in this concept. I'm still listening. Yeah, yeah. Think it's, know, is, we've heard interesting information. It's a hard question. I don't wanna say too much because honestly I have a specific opinion and I'm more interested in what other people's opinions are at this point in time in terms of the kind of direction you'd like to see us taking in terms of our feedback to the judiciary committee about the language in the bill. And we will go through it sort of section by section. There's a new draft on the judiciary website yesterday, there's a 3.1. And I don't know if there's a new one. I don't know if there's a new one today, but there was a new one yesterday. And judiciary is continuing to work on the bill as is corrections and institutions. The healthcare committee has concluded their testimony on it. And after this afternoon, we will have concluded our testimony on it. We had some thoughts yesterday. I know Eric has expressed some thoughts about the nature of versus And I don't know if other people have other thoughts about that or anything in particular. And remembering we're talking about that sort of cohort of people that we have responsibility for.

[Representative Zon Eastes]: May I

[Representative Eric Maguire]: share something?

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: Yeah, yeah, this is just a question. Anybody can tell me.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: German, the testimony and hearing from questions from people and so forth, a lot of the concerns were brought up in regards to the civil cases, the intellectual disabilities and potential of them being caught up in the system and those placements are there. This is why it's vitally, vitally important that the governance is separated. Because once that governance is separated, and there is custodial authority and clinical authority, those individuals that there were concerns that they fall through the crack and get caught up in a forensics facility, those cracks are filled. If the governance remains as it's lined up and off right now, those concerns that were being expressed, and I know I may have pushed back in a little bit of different way, because I was trying to articulate my thoughts and process behind it. The way that governance is remaining, there is that potential that those civil cases for the sake of a lesser that are maybe under the supervision of Dale could end up in that.

[Speaker 0]: I want to clarify those, you're speaking to the folks that could be assigned to Act two forty eight. Those are criminal cases. They're not

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But such cases,

[Representative Eric Maguire]: there are within the governance as it's laid out, there is the potential that those, there are civil cases that aren't criminal in nature. Forensics facility is strictly as the language is within here, the certain population has to be within the criminal justice system.

[Representative Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, yeah. But

[Representative Eric Maguire]: with the lack of a dual governance of custodial authority and clinical authority, there is the potential that certain cases could actually be pushed out over there through judge rule.

[Speaker 0]: Well, and in fact that, I guess there is the possibility of that happening because for people who don't meet those specific crimes that carry a life sentence, if they're already in the criminal justice system, I'm connecting with what you're saying. They risk the possibility that all of a sudden they migrate over here and maybe get stuck there.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: And without the dual governance, there is the potential that the system as punitive and secure and so forth takes precedent over treatment other

[Speaker 0]: For the more minor crimes, yeah. Think it's also important to note that just went out of my head, was related to that. Alright. It'll come back, maybe.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: Share a few thoughts. I guess in the broader context, seems that maybe Vermont is an outlier that we don't have a more formalized structure for a forensic facility. I'm not fully versed on that, but it seems like maybe there's a gap there, but it seems like a gap and not to speak to where the appropriate setting is, but it seems particularly if looking at the issue of competency restoration that maybe there is a place for some sort of enhanced forensic facility or focus in Vermont, but more on the for populations, I would think, with other mental health or substance use disorders where I've eventually, there's probably greater data to support that competency restoration can occur. It doesn't seem to be cannot. Can can. Can occur. With respect to the purview of this committee, and I think the corrections Committee on Corrections and Institutions has spoken pretty clearly whether they think DOC is the correct venue. So I'll I'll leave that leave that to them. With respect to individuals with intellectual or development disabilities and individuals with dementia, particularly with intellectual disabilities, we have a process in place, it sounds like, this act two forty eight. And if there needs to be some tweaks to fill some real or perceived gap that the DOC commissioner spoke about, then I think we can identify a way to fill that gap with the existing two forty

[Speaker 0]: eight Exactly.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: Than a

[Representative Doug Bishop]: full than a full pledged use of

[Speaker 0]: say two.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: Yeah. Of a DOC process for for for this.

[Speaker 0]: Well, and I I think that's a good point. And that was kind of the whole point of what the legislature had asked the department to look into when they reported to joint justice oversight. And at that time, the department said they lacked the resources to implement such a thing. But if as the agency of human services says that the numbers are so small for that group of people, I don't really understand why that wouldn't be an appropriate avenue. So yeah, I was getting texts from different people saying, maybe we should expand Act two forty eight, which does deal with public safety, but also the services, community based services for people with, if a person with dementia happens to commit one of these major crimes, a person with a brain injury, I think that that would be a more appropriate route. The other thing I just wanna say is that I have heard a lot of testimony, in this committee, but in my role on Joint Justice Justice Oversight Committee about the problems with staffing at correctional facilities. And it is real. Not something that the union's making up or anything like that. It is real. And people are doing sixteen hour shifts now. And we have correctional officers who, these are, folks that they're talking about are not what I just would call regular residents of a correctional facility. They will require additional time and effort and additional expertise on behalf of correctional officers and general people who work in the correctional system. Everything from making sure that people know what their rights are, making sure that they know a daily schedule. For some of these people, that is not easy to comprehend for them that you're being told what to do pretty much every moment that you're in a correctional facility. That-

[Representative Doug Bishop]: The testimony seems to be lacking to give me the confidence that DOC could figure out how to address the needs of the populations, maybe generally, but certainly the population that we are most focused on.

[Representative Zon Eastes]: Yeah, yeah. Dan? Yeah, I mean, I was just thinking

[Representative Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: this is a very small population and our concern is that somebody would find themselves in this situation. Is there a way to review cases periodically of individuals who are kinda, I'm not gonna say stuck in the middle of this, but they haven't been found guilty of a crime, correct? Correct. And so is there a way to have periodic review of those individuals outside of this two forty? I mean, I don't know if there's, We talk about these no, are under the

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: no. Does require periodically.

[Representative Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: But they're under the jurisdiction of

[Speaker 0]: Corrections.

[Representative Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Corrections, but also Dale. In February. Right? No. Under the commission

[Speaker 0]: forty eight, they're just under Dale's.

[Representative Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: They're right. Under two forty eight, they're just under Dale.

[Speaker 0]: Right. In this bill, they're under DOC.

[Representative Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. In this, they're under DOC. I mean, is there an is there a to have Dale have, like, a review of, you know, when people end up in this just to at least make sure that they're in the right place? I I mean, I don't know. It's a very small amount. I'm not asking Dale anything other than to like review the case on a periodic basis to say, yeah, they're in the right place or we should be taking a different look at this individual.

[Representative Todd Nielsen]: Dick? Just to kind of follow-up on that, I believe it's currently once a year.

[Speaker 0]: F-two 48, I think, is also once a year. Yeah.

[Representative Todd Nielsen]: I'm glad there's a review in place, but for me that just seems too long.

[Speaker 0]: Well, in Act two forty eight, you're in the community.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So that's the difference. I hear

[Representative Todd Nielsen]: a good general, specifically talking, like sitting for a year. Like that feels too long. And I was reading that in other states that do have forensic facilities, it's much like that is It's a great one. Some states it's thirty days, thirty to ninety, seem to be what I was reading. So yeah, I would just like to work in there. If we're going to proceed with including folks with intellectual and developmental disabilities, I would want a much more frequent review. Might it be the commissioner

[Representative Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: and department of development instead that would be

[Speaker 0]: Well, I think that speaks to what Eric was saying. It's like, we have DOC being in charge of a restoration process and it's not And I will say that, I think that there have been concerns about the current medical care provider that the state is contracting with. And there's been a lot of lawsuits that they have lost in regard to that care. So putting additional responsibilities onto that entity, I'm not sure makes a lot of sense. Yeah, go ahead.

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: I mean, that's the major piece that I really wanted to speak to. With the backdrop of the area, I guess, of our primary jurisdiction, which is individuals with developmental disabilities, folks who have all heard the deal category, like yes to Act two forty eight and what's working and yes to accepting feedback about what would make it better. That, of course, if that's something that we can do in the legislature, let's go for it. But for everyone else who is not competent to stay on trial for whatever reason being placed in DOC, funneling more money to a system that is not working already makes no sense to me. And if we heard alternative testimony about how well path has supported folks in their mental health journey during incarceration at any stage of the game, whether it's competent to stand trial or not, or any stage of the game, then it would be a different story. If we heard plenty of success stories, people are doing better as a result of being under their care. But based on what I have witnessed from constituents who have been through this system and loved ones who have been through the system and had care under WellPath, that it's not happening and giving them more money, I do not see how that will change. So not an effective use of taxpayer dollars in my opinion.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I also have, I mean, I'll just echo some of the things that have been said. I have serious concerns about the expertise that is required to care not just care, but that restoration piece, right? That is very particular set of skills. And some of the examples that I found Barbra Prine's testimony yesterday really, really compelling. She used actual examples of clients that are now in correctional facilities with intellectual or developmental disabilities and how they are penalized or punished, disciplined for behavior that It's a result of their disability. Right. And she testified that the behavior is disruptive. It is. But having that person in that setting, they're not going to understand why that behavior is disruptive. And then the other thing mentioned that was really compelling to me is that having this facility and this new framework could probably result, and I do agree with this, is less people going through the Act two forty eight. So it would just decrease that, like the community supports that are, because now it's a new place that people can go and we're very unsure of the skill set and the expertise and the appropriateness of that new space with this population. So my preference would be to not include people with IDD and just they're not eligible for this.

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: Mean, Yeah, tagging onto that sort of commentary too, it's like, I think we must keep in mind, of course, that for ninety percent plus, I think probably more than ninety because the really long term cases are done in Mississippi mostly for longer sentences, but people are going to be reentering. I mean, I know we're talking about really egregious crimes here, but in some of these cases, will be reentering society. So it's just like thinking about the input that happens in between and how we are going to affect their outcome. But I don't afterward is critical. That investment and what we want as a result when people are released is really something to consider because I don't know that things are going to change there at least if we invest in this. When I asked

[Speaker 0]: the department about what the cost would be, he said, I don't know. I

[Representative Zon Eastes]: And did they so

[Speaker 0]: I know it's part of

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: the report coming back and

[Speaker 0]: all that, but I really hate passing legislation when we don't know what the cost of it is going to be. Mean, no even attempt to give an estimate. I'm pretty sure they've conversations So with wealth I think that they have some idea. I like the institutions.

[Representative Todd Nielsen]: Yes, there we go, I'm like, I'm missing a word. I liked their recommendation that there be a feasibility study. All of the things discussed, but I just feel really uncomfortable voting for something when we don't have huge amounts of information that I feel we need to make a decision.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: Well, last point. S-one 193 is specifically designed, when they speak of those things, it's specifically designed for individuals that have been deemed incompetent to stand trial, and for individuals that may be found NGRI, not guilty of reasonable insanity. S-ninety three is specifically designed. S two for whatever it was, two forty eight was designed for that specific population as already expressed. I don't think it's practical nor it would be difficult to apply, but practicality wise to expand two forty eight to meet this. We will be going back years after this and undoing the unstability that we caused. I get it. This is as it's laid on out, as I've expressed, this is a public safety detention model. But with those governance, all of these concerns that are being raised in this, like these people are gonna fall through the cracks in this side. The other thing, they kind of subside. And I also go to what Jubilee was saying and the recommendations that would be the best alternative. Let's get this into a, and I'm not talking about a two year, three year study, but brief to where the plan comes together, the feasibility study comes together, the governance is looked at, all the facts, the literature is looked at, of what I'm also seeing going on is politicalization and people leaning upon their own understanding on how these things operate, which in turn will cause significant instability. The concerns that we are all bringing up will rear their ugly heads, instead of turning around and saying, Hey, let's put together, we know what the consequences of the unintended outcomes are gonna be.

[Speaker 0]: And I think that, I haven't heard anybody say that we don't think that there needs to be a way in those few cases, continue to protect the public from the term bad actors is used out there. For people who really have shown through people's experiences that they really should not have been released back into the public. The constitutional issues are being dealt with in judiciary. So we don't need to sort of think about those as much. But the practicality issues of how would you go about doing that? And what are the things that would need to be in place? And we did ask some questions, why can't you, if you have people there, why can't you do this competency restoration now? And apparently there's no legal way to do it. So we have to create a statute that says you can do competency restoration. And I get that aspect of it. And I think that we've born, we have actually specific experience that varies from prosecutor to prosecutor in terms of their determinations about who they're gonna prosecute, who they're not going to prosecute. And I think that we have seen cases where people released into the community that committed a heinous crime and that's not a good thing. So there is gaps. It's how we fill those gaps and who's in charge of filling them and needing more information about how would you actually implement this. And that is sort of what this report back is supposed to do. And I think we need to beat that part up a bit. And so this is helpful. It seems as though we're all kind of in the same general sphere of things in terms of what we can offer for the judiciary committee to consider. I think it's worth considering expanding Act two forty eight to a couple of other applications that would clearly not be appropriate for this. They keep calling it a facility. It's not a facility. It's just an existing place, a location. And I think that's a worthy recommendation. I don't think we're gonna do that in this bill, but I think that is something that is worth considering.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: When I was saying the competency restoration applies strictly to those that have been found incompetent to stand trial of those six, and then the hope is that you may be able to restore the competency so they can stand trial. What I would have liked to have seen happen from AHS administration and other people within the field is a better job of clarifying and explaining some of these nuances, explaining really some of the other deeper contexts, explaining how the processes do work, and being concise with those explanations. Yeah. And that's also a significant concern to me when things are being presented and you can't kind of concisely clarify what you wanna do.

[Speaker 0]: Well, yeah, I have to

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: remember they're here to present a particular message.

[Speaker 0]: So, Zon, it looked like you had something you wanted

[Representative Zon Eastes]: to Yeah, I don't have anything much to add at all, except that it seems to me that what I'm hearing in all of this is the cases are so few that we're dealing with, and we don't have a clear way of, there's no one size fits all. Could there be a kind of review board or something that sits just for those instances to protect the various aspects that we're looking at here? Not one of these aspects, legal or the rights of an individual are going to rise up with an answer that anybody's going to be able to come to. We're going

[Representative Doug Bishop]: to have to probably talk

[Speaker 0]: about I feel it needs to be something independent of the Department of Corrections.

[Representative Zon Eastes]: Exactly. That's how I agree with this dual. Yeah. If we get the best might mean or the lowest option might be to get dual governance.

[Speaker 0]: That would the lowest option.

[Representative Zon Eastes]: But the best might be a border Yeah. Or Yeah.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: Yeah. The dual government is something all of a sudden.

[Representative Zon Eastes]: Right. Okay. Oh, I see.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: Okay. I didn't know that.

[Representative Zon Eastes]: Okay. See some things. That's great.

[Speaker 0]: I mean, at Yale, for instance, there's an ethics committee. When they're making care decisions or medical decisions that are different than what normal practice would be, and they have to consider the ethics of it. And Cindy Brussezi, who we've had here before, she sits, I think she might chair it, I'm not sure, but she sits on that committee and it's independent of what the department does. They actually bring the case and this ethics committee makes a decision about whether or not it's ethical to be able to restrict somebody's movement for their safety, for instance, as an example. But that whole concept could apply to the sort of broader review process. All right, this is very helpful. I'll see you back We after have a number of witnesses after floor. So please come right back after floor.