Senate committee hears divided testimony on S.119 to license early childhood educators

The Senate Committee on Government Operations heard continued testimony Thursday, April 10, on S.119, a proposal to create a tiered license for early childhood educators and to establish a new Office of Professional Recognition (OPR) licensing pathway for ECE 1–3 practitioners.

Proponents and project leaders told the committee that the bill would create a profession structure, clearer pathways and accountability for the workforce. Opponents and long‑time family child‑care providers said the bill as drafted risks forcing many existing providers out of the field, asked for explicit exemptions for small home‑based providers and urged a longer transitional period and multiple alternative pathways including competency or prior‑learning assessments.

Why it matters: Supporters say licensure will raise preparation standards and public transparency. Critics say the law, as written, could reduce capacity at a time when childcare access is limited, particularly in rural areas where family child‑care homes are prevalent.

The bill and concerns raised

Giovanni Taber, who identified himself as running Vermont Afterschool/Third Spaces, told senators that the bill’s proposed definition of “child” (birth to 8) risks overlapping existing Department for Children and Families (DCF) rules used in Vermont, and proposed changing the scope to birth through age 5 to avoid duplicative regulatory requirements. He also urged the committee to add statutory exemptions already in DCF regulations (for example, care for not more than two families, licensed hospital programs, religious activity programs and single‑skill recreation programs) so those programs are not unintentionally swept into the new licensing regime.

Taber also cited the Sunrise Review Assessment and other analyses saying roughly 28% of the current workforce could be “alienated” by narrow qualification pathways in S.119; he warned that, based on provider outreach, as many as 40% of providers he contacted said they were likely to close because of burnout and the bill’s requirements. He urged extending the transitional license from six years to eight, saying “it can take an early childhood educator working full time six to eight years to earn an associate’s degree.”

Family child‑care providers and long‑time educators gave mixed testimony. Sherry Boudreaux, who said she has run a family home early childhood program since 1989, said she supports the legislation’s goal of professional recognition and asked that the process preserve pathways for experienced providers: “We want to keep shaping a process that works for us,” she told the committee, and urged that family home providers have options to “get credit for what you know.”

Rachel Hunter, who said she led outreach for the professionalization effort and is an early childhood educator in Springfield, described the multi‑year engagement and outreach campaign behind the proposal and said the bill includes phased implementation and “earn while you learn” options. She told senators that engagement with more than 700 educators produced broad support for clearer pathways, stronger preparation and better pay, and said, “This work that we've entered into is really, in my opinion, what's best for children.”

Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) staff, including Jen Poland, general counsel, and Lauren Hibbert (identified as deputy secretary of state in the transcript), told the committee the sponsors and OPR have been meeting with the Agency of Education (AOE) and other partners to reduce public confusion about the new license and to avoid duplicating the AOE teacher license. Poland said the bill intends to make a practical distinction between the AOE teacher license (which covers public‑school teachers with an early childhood endorsement) and the proposed OPR license to “practice” in private or center settings; Poland noted similar dual‑licensing arrangements already exist for professionals such as nurses and speech‑language pathologists.

Points of tension and requested changes

- Title and role confusion: Multiple senators and witnesses raised concern that using the word “educator” could confuse parents and overlap with the Agency of Education’s teacher license. OPR and supporters said they prefer the national title consistency and plan clarifying amendments and public disclosure language that would explain who is licensed by which authority and how to submit complaints.

- Transitional timeline and pathways: Witnesses and several senators pressed for a longer transitional license period. Taber recommended extending the maximum transitional license from six to eight years; several committee members and OPR staff said they were open to longer timelines and to specifying alternative pathways in administrative rules rather than statute while ensuring rules explicitly include prior‑learning/competency assessments and legacy provisions for current providers.

- Exemptions and small home providers: Testimony requested explicit statutory language to exempt providers already excluded under DCF rules (for example, care for not more than two families) or to create a legacy pathway for registered family home providers with clean regulatory histories.

- Cost and capacity risks: Taber and others raised the bill’s fiscal and operational impact: the Sunrise Review and OPR materials referenced an initial one‑time funding ask of $1,400,000 to staff the new licensing function and five permanent positions; OPR testified that after startup the system is expected to be supported by provider license fees. Taber cautioned that low wages and narrow qualification requirements could cause closures and workforce losses, asking, “What is the acceptable number of program closures to implement this?”

What the committee directed and next steps

No formal vote on S.119 occurred during the hearing. OPR said it will draft amendments intended to (1) clarify the scope and title to reduce public confusion, (2) add disclosure requirements about a facility’s licensing scheme, and (3) develop a legacy/transition proposal and explicit rulemaking direction that includes alternative pathways (including prior‑learning or competency‑based options) for current providers. Committee members indicated they want more time and asked OPR and stakeholders to return with a revision; the chair said the committee would reconvene to continue the conversation (committee members suggested a one‑week turnaround for additional materials and draft amendments).

Ending

Committee members signaled openness to modifying S.119’s transition timeline and to inserting explicit language requiring administrative rules to include alternative pathways and legacy provisions. The committee did not take action on the bill at this hearing; staff from OPR and stakeholders said they would submit proposed draft amendments and return for further discussion.