Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We're live.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Senate Education Committee on the afternoon of February 27. We're starting today with a look at a new draft or proposal with regard to S-two 14, an act of the provision of kindergarten education in geographically isolated school districts. We have with us Janet McLaughlin, Emily Simmons, and legislative counsel, I think James is here, should we need her for some time. I think we'll, So Janet, are you gonna speak first?

[Janet McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, VT DCF – Child Development Division)]: Yes. Hi there, hi everyone. Janet McLaughlin, Deputy Commissioner in the Department for Children and Families overseeing the Child Development Division. And one of the things that we do is co administer the universal pre kindergarten program along with the agency of education. And so, as you know, when we talked about S-two 14, maybe a couple weeks ago now, I think we all agreed, on the need for making sure that children in Essex County have access to universal pre kindergarten, similar to other children in Vermont. We wanted to come up with a targeted solution to make sure that those children had access. Am having listening to that conversation, I also consulted with Sharon Ellingwood, was the other witness, another witness that day who was from Essex County and part of the NDK Choice School District. Yep, so there she is, and there's Sharon, I'm assuming as well. And we, and trying to think about what the needs were and what would be simplest, consulted also with the Agency of Education to come up with an alternative proposal that focused on really targeting this change to the specific school district where this is an issue, rather than, broadly needing to come up with a new definition of geographic isolation. And then also focusing on, you know, making sure that children could get their pre kindergarten at the places where they were likely to attend kindergarten, as another priority. And then also recommending that it be organized as a waiver structure rather than directing the agencies to come up with a new set of alternative prequalification requirements that might that would require us to sort of think through all the permutations of what might be happening in New Hampshire, and thought that it would probably be easier for those that are closest to the situation to be able to tell us how they would intend to make sure that the pre kindergarten education that those children were receiving was, you know, substantially similar to what they were getting in that they were getting if if they had access in Vermont. So that is what we discussed and discussed with the agency of education team, and then general counsel Simmons was helpful in putting together suggested language.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So do I understand correctly that what this is actually a potential strike call amendment is just to add, to add just this language, okay, to existing statute. Okay. Okay, so are we gonna walk through it? Is there some board you gonna walk us through it?

[Janet McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, VT DCF – Child Development Division)]: And I also just wanted to note, Sharon's here. Bless you. Sharon Hurt.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. That's additional language need.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay. So, Emily, are gonna walk us through it?

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Agency of Education)]: Sure. Why don't I get on the record? Emily Simmons, general counsel, Agency of Education. So this would be new language in section eight twenty nine, which is the title 16 provision for pre k. Similar to your bill, you were putting some s two fourteen was putting some new language in this same new op a, so that's similar. So this would provide that the Essex North Supervisory Union, including the Canaan School District and the NEK Choice School District, may provide prekindergarten to eligible prekindergarten students by paying tuition to one or more prekindergarten programs operated by a public school in New Hampshire located in a school district sharing a border with Vermont. So that is the description of the the status quo problem that's clearly identified and agreed upon. It goes on to say that Essex North supervisory union shall be responsible for administering enrollment procedures and managing prekindergarten tuition payments as outlined in applicable law, and this is my little drafting note to your legislative council. That's all in section eight twenty nine. That's my bracket there. And with state board of education rules, The superintendent may apply for and receive a waiver from the agencies of Education and Human Services of any rule provision that is impractical for the said program in New Hampshire by demonstrating that a substantially equivalent provision is offered by the New Hampshire program?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So let's parse that and make sure we understand what that means. The first two sentences would tend to suggest that Pre K kids can simply go to school to do it in New Hampshire. How does the third sentence fit into that? What effect does that have? Does it have any effect on the first two sentences?

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Agency of Education)]: Should not. No. The third sentence is really a quality assurance sentence to layer on top of the payment of the pre k funds to the described programs. So the the waiver process, we intend to be very straightforward. I almost would characterize it, you know, all the parties know the issues. So it's really more of a documentation process from my point of view. We're gonna establish here is how we know that the New Hampshire program differs from the Vermont requirements that are in rule and statute. Here is what we're looking at that New Hampshire programs are required to follow that is speaking to that same requirement, substantially equivalent to that same requirement. It's documented and the waiver is issued to the district.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay. So it's not just takeaway that those initially draft, they could simply go. And this is now adding on top of that some level of, she said, quality assurance.

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Agency of Education)]: I think the rules that you were contemplating in S two fourteen were you were asking the state board to look at what issues were different between New Hampshire and Vermont. And here, we're acknowledging. I think over the last several years, we've surfaced the Sharon and Janet might flesh this out a little bit. I believe the main issues are in what state is a teacher holding their license. Obviously, why would a New Hampshire teacher have a Vermont license? And the administration of the specific assessment that is used in Vermont as well as the specific Vermont named curriculum.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So I guess I guess I'm just sitting here wondering if this gonna get in complication. I mean I think the way I've been thinking about this is it's a New Hampshire public school. Kids can go there in K through 12 and we're just going to let the pre K kids as well. But are this more we complicated than it needs to be or not?

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Agency of Education)]: If it's your wish to not tie up any or just just leave the differences in the programs to the side, I think the third sentence would say or we would put a notwithstanding. So we would the concept here is that the Essex North Supervisory Union in the second sentence has a responsibility for managing the program, not simply cutting a check. I think that your proposal would look more like the S six North supervisory union shall pay tuition as outlined above reference the tuition amount that's already in statute, period.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: I just want to make sure. Okay. So We

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Agency of Education)]: would prefer the the two agencies would prefer to document that we are, you know, attending to documenting that the students are receiving the substantially equivalent quality that we have in Vermont. And that's easy for us to say now because we're, as I said, pretty familiar with the the New Hampshire side programs. Janet, did you wanna speak to that at all? You were a little more familiar with the way the regulations work between the two.

[Janet McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, VT DCF – Child Development Division)]: Yeah, I think that I didn't I wasn't reading S two fourteen as saying that there was the original draft is saying that the pre kindergarten education rules that we have in Vermont did were not gonna apply to the Vermont to to the New Hampshire programs, because the prequalification process has in the in the original in the original draft of s two fourteen, it doesn't say that those roles would be waived. So I actually thought our solution this solution that we're proposing is actually saying that that to saying that there is a process by which those could be waived. This, that s two fourteen did not say that So we thought we were adding that in in a way to make it clear that around the elements that that Emily was talking about. Again, there's 11 standards to become a pre qualified pre kindergarten program in Vermont. And again, not all of those are practical in New Hampshire, right? You wouldn't be licensed as a Vermont childcare program if you're in if you're in New Hampshire. And so we actually thought that was something that was missing in the in the current draft to say that we need to address the practical those considerations Because otherwise or that you wanted us to create rules that would explicitly outline what those substantially equivalent measures would be, which, again, we don't think I mean, we think that the New Hampshire, the school district, the New Hampshire programs would best able to articulate that really easily. So if you guys, so that's how we were reading what was there.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay. Just wanna make sure I understand. You talked about preapproval, is this gonna be a relatively simple process or is this?

[Janet McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, VT DCF – Child Development Division)]: Yeah, In yes. It can be. I mean, right now, there is an application process that all Vermont programs are are using. And so this would this would be they wouldn't even this would be probably even a little bit simpler than that where we would and again, they would just it would just be a simple letter where you're saying, here are the 11 requirements, and then they and then they would be able to say, this is how they're meeting that standard. And, again, it should be information that's very available to say, we have it's gonna be led by somebody who has a New Hampshire educator's license. Right? This is you know, we affirm that the the children will have access to their early childhood special education services that that they need to have. We affirm that I'm trying to think about that. You know, we will use a measure of, there's, this is how, these are our quality measures that we have in New Hampshire. They're all, you know, these are our safety measures, these are our quality measures, and they would just be able to just point to what they are, because they all exist in New Hampshire.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So what was the reason, I know Senator Seth has a question, but I'm worth, what was the reason for staying in a school district bordering Vermont? Because what, I don't know the area well enough to know whether that presents an issue for some families who have kids going to schools in New Hampshire that don't border Vermont. What was the rationale for limiting it to bordering Vermont?

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Agency of Education)]: We're continuing to describe the status quo of where those students were going to attend kindergarten. And if that is incorrect, then we wanna be flexible to accurately describe the areas we're talking about. And I see Sharon having a reaction, so I think yeah. Okay. Hey, Sharon.

[Janet McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, VT DCF – Child Development Division)]: And and I will just add one other piece of information is that next Wednesday is both I'll be in Essex County next Wednesday, and so will AWE Deputy Secretary Briggs Campbell will be there. And I will be meeting with a member of the Annie K. Choi School District over lunch. And I know Deputy Secretary Briggs Campbell will also be having a community forum next Wednesday evening. So I actually think this is good timing and that we're able to put this proposal out today. And then by next Wednesday, Jill and I will be on the ground in the community and be able to hear from some folks who would be able to help us make sure that this is if there's any refinements or tweaks to this proposal that would be needed.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay. And Sharon, so you know, I'm not ignoring you. I'll get you in here in

[Unidentified Committee Member (Senator)]: a minute. Senator. Yes, just one well, two questions. One, does the AOE memo and the underlying bill is the language compatible with Act 73 language concerning out of state tuition limitations? I

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Agency of Education)]: wish this were posed to your legislative council, but, yes, I believe we have out of state tuition to public schools in New Hampshire consistent with the changes made that became effective July 1 in act 73?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Yep. For the record?

[Janet McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, VT DCF – Child Development Division)]: Betsy James, office of legislative council. Emily is correct, but also Act 73 does not change how pre K tuition is paid or administered.

[Unidentified Committee Member (Senator)]: Okay, and then second question, does this also recognize or respect the pre K student as a special ed student? Got its own dynamics.

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Agency of Education)]: So the similar to in state pre kindergarten or identical really to in state pre k payments, the school district or supervisory union in this case, where the student is a resident gets has their obligation for special education services from that supervisory union. And that as you pushes in, delivers or contracts for the necessary services at the enrollment site.

[Unidentified Committee Member (Senator)]: Good. Thank you.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Beth, do have anything? No. Okay. Sharon.

[Sharon Ellingwood (NEK Choice School District, Essex North Supervisory Union)]: Good afternoon. For the record, Sharon Ellingwood, NEK Choice School District, Essex North Supervisory Union. Respectfully, thank you for the opportunity, everyone across Zoom and the committee room. I was pleased to be asked to jump in today and so grateful and pleased from the testimony and thoughtfulness that I'm hearing on the bill. I've communicated with Janet some suggestions that I know that we are going to kind of sugar off in our visit for Essex County Capital for a day next Wednesday. And we have ordered lunch and it's going to be Essex County sourced and it's going to be a great day. I'm very grateful for the timing. I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have. I did not prepare testimony because I didn't know I was coming, but everything I'm hearing, I'm just on board with. Do not all the public schools that the kids go to kindergarten to, they don't all have a pre K. So it's still a little bit of a pre K desert within a pre K desert. We're talking about that And bordering the state of Vermont could be potentially a dangerous thing to put in there. You might just have the next town over that doesn't touch our state literally. So that is a concern that we could carve out a little bit or

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: refine. I would say that I would be inclined to do that if we can. Let's say this is like, do we have to anybody we're limiting this to Essex County. Do we have another part of the state right there, but not Nessus County that the same, that actually has the same issue?

[Sharon Ellingwood (NEK Choice School District, Essex North Supervisory Union)]: I did this last week, Committee Chair Bongartz. I looked up all the K-twelve non operatings in the state of Vermont to see if any were on a state border and they are not. They are very central. We're talking about Windham Hall and kind of that corridor where it's forested, where it's a very similar place on how we get small population density, but they do not, they are not on a border. I felt more confident to come and ask you for help when I saw that, you know, we were really the only ones that we wouldn't be leaving others out and we weren't asking for, you know, for special treatment for the sake of special treatment.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay. So remember.

[Speaker 0]: Who we had in yesterday was saying they sent each other to mass. Well, Sorry. It it wouldn't run into that same issue down there

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: with preaching. That's an interesting question. That is you were talking about Stanford or Windsboro. Yes. They have elementary, they actually have elementary so no, not an issue.

[Sharon Ellingwood (NEK Choice School District, Essex North Supervisory Union)]: No, and that's the difference. Their non operating is high school or beginning at middle school. So it's really the K-eight non operating that I honed in on, but that's a very good instinct because there are a lot of students that do cross the I'm state a little concerned about some of the little towns have private pre Ks where we might need them, where the public school would only take New Hampshire students as a priority if they were filling. But I don't know how much we can ask for. We definitely want to mirror what the rules are currently to go out of state. We don't want more than what Vermont says about out of state, such as tuition into private independence, which we know we can't do, you know, beginning at kindergarten. So I'm cognizant of that in the language. And, I think this visit next week is going to help us hone in on where we want to everybody wants to be. I don't know if Janet, you are feeling the same way.

[Janet McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, VT DCF – Child Development Division)]: Yeah. I agree. And I think that's right. Because it is such a small number of children and such a very specific community, I mean, can literally go program by program and, you know, get an assessment, you know, of location by location, you know, it's only gonna be it's less than, you know, five to 10 or whatever. So it's easy that even potential pre kindergarten sites. So I think we're thinking that we can do some of that next week. And I will also offer we did I appreciate Sharon's research where she was but also, right, this this has been a topic of conversation for about three years, Building Bright Futures has certainly looked into it, and we haven't identified other parts of the state where people have have have raised their hand and said this is a similar issue for us.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay. So I think what you're suggesting is that we consider this a first look. You're gonna go on Wednesday and then we'll talk again.

[Janet McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, VT DCF – Child Development Division)]: Yes. We're glad to have a chance to talk today in case you guys said wanted to wave us into it in a totally different direction, but I think we're feeling like this could meet the community needs and kids needs.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Think I just want to I think you've answered this question, but I think our intent was that this just be simple and available. And I think you're saying that even with the layer of looking for some level of comparison to the Vermont product, but it's still going to be simple and accessible to families who need it. I think I see the hands on itself. That was the question I was trying to get at is, it going to be truly simple and available? And I think you're answering yes. Well we will plan to have you back maybe as early as Tuesday of the week we get back because that's the week of crossover. So if we're going to move on as we go, we're going to have to do it quickly. I think there's a real, I'm sensing in the room we're going want to get this done for people. So, okay. Janet, if you give me a call, like, on Thursday or Friday?

[Janet McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, VT DCF – Child Development Division)]: Sure. I can do that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Just to just to get my head in it. We no. We I can we can maybe plan a direction to make sure that we can get moving. Okay. In case anything comes up that we're not going now, so I could be there. Okay. Thank you.

[Janet McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, VT DCF – Child Development Division)]: Sounds great.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Thank By the way, anybody else? Any other questions? Should we go? Anything else anybody wants to say to us? Okay, good. Thank you. Have a good day.

[Sharon Ellingwood (NEK Choice School District, Essex North Supervisory Union)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Well, we actually put that take. That didn't take as long as it's supposed to. We're actually we're ahead of schedule by a few minutes. So I guess we had to Rutgers might be coming to him, right?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. He's a father, Eddie Bell. Okay. Well, we're

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: on break for fifteen minutes. See everybody

[Janet McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, VT DCF – Child Development Division)]: back

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: at two.