Committee debates licensure pathways for early childhood educators; agencies seek statutory fixes

The Senate Committee on Government Operations spent a lengthy hearing on S.119, an act relating to licensure of early childhood educators, where representative stakeholders described both the need to expand entry pathways and the risk of creating parallel licensure systems that could conflict with federal education funding rules.

Don Tenney, president of the Vermont MEA and a 31‑year high‑school English teacher, testified that Vermont already maintains a rigorous early‑childhood licensure process administered by the Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators (VSBPE) with support from the Agency of Education (AOE). Tenney said the board’s licensing “assures that the holders of the early childhood education license are authorized and qualified to teach young children” and argued the AOE/VSBPE process should retain jurisdiction for early‑childhood licensure tied to public pre‑K.

Agency of Education witnesses — Assistant Director Andrew Prowton and early‑education manager Tammy Bates — told the committee the AOE supports expanding professional pathways but warned S.119 as drafted could introduce confusion. The agency explained that Act 166 (the universal pre‑K statute) relies on an AOE license and that private providers who access public pre‑K funding must meet prequalification standards; in those settings the AOE license (an endorsement that spans birth through grade 3) is required for the hours covered by public funds.

Prowton and Bates raised two primary concerns: certain draft provisions in S.119 (notably language authorizing ECE‑1 and ECE‑2 licensees to “serve in an early childhood education team … in any setting”) could allow OPR‑licensed practitioners to operate in public settings in ways that collide with federal Title I or IDEA requirements for staff qualifications; and the bill as written left ambiguity about how Act 166 funding and program rules would interact with a new OPR licensure track. Prowton flagged the risk that, if an OPR licensee were treated as equivalent in a public‑funded setting, federal funding rules could be unintentionally violated in many Vermont schools.

Jennifer Cohen, general counsel for the Office of Professional Regulation (OPR), told the committee OPR did not intend to require additional licensure for universal pre‑K programs and that the bill included exemptions for AOE licensees. Cohen said OPR envisions its ECE tiers primarily regulating private center‑based and family‑childcare providers who are outside the AOE’s public‑school licensure requirement, but acknowledged the statutory language needs clarification to avoid overlap with AOE responsibilities.

Deputy Secretary of State Lauren Everett told senators the Office of Professional Regulation regards people working with children in private 0–5 settings as “educators” and said the offices could build operational referral pathways so that anyone seeking to work in a public school would be directed to AOE licensing while private‑only applicants would follow the OPR track.

Committee members — including Senators Clarkson, Wagner, and White — asked detailed procedural questions about current AOE licensing pathways, alternative peer‑review routes, license counts, timelines, and renewal requirements. Agency witnesses said AOE currently handles about 1,853 early‑education licenses (including early childhood education and early childhood special education endorsements) and that a Level‑1 license is a 3‑year credential requiring 45 hours (or 3 credits) of professional learning for renewal. AOE staff described both the traditional bachelor’s‑degree pathway and a peer‑review alternative used by many early‑childhood educators, particularly after Act 166 created public funding access for private providers.

No final vote was taken. Committee leadership encouraged AOE, OPR, and other stakeholders to meet, to draft clarifying amendments (for example, specifying that Act 166 references AOE‑issued early educator licenses where intended), and to return with proposed statutory language. Senators said they were willing to find a “sweet spot” that expands career entry points while avoiding regulatory and federal funding conflicts.

The committee scheduled additional testimony on S.119 for the next meeting and asked AOE and OPR to propose specific statutory edits and referral procedures that would preserve AOE authority for public‑setting licensure while allowing OPR authority to regulate private center and family‑childcare licensure pathways.