Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Early Childhood Licensure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Early‑childhood educators and advocates urge Senate committee to back S.119 and OPR licensure recommendations
Summary
Providers and the Vermont AEYC told the Senate Government Operations Committee on March 26 that licensing individual early‑childhood educators (S.119, OPR Sunrise Review recommendations) will clarify career pathways, raise qualifications, and protect children while noting supports and phased timelines to avoid workforce harm.
Senate Government Operations Committee members heard testimony March 26 on S.119 and the Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) Sunrise Review recommendations to license individual early‑childhood educators in regulated programs.
Stephanie Carvey, Co‑Executive Director of the Rutland County Fair and Child Center, told the committee, “The single most important factor in high quality experiences for young children is the qualifications of the people working with them and their families.” Carvey said Vermont has already built supports — scholarships, apprenticeships and programs funded after Act 76 — that make licensure feasible and help retain educators.
Sharon Harrington, executive director of the Vermont Association for the Education of Young Children (Vermont AEYC), and Susan Titterton, project coordinator for Vermont AEYC’s workforce initiative, described the breadth of their outreach and the workforce consensus behind professional recognition. Harrington said the OPR review “responds to the application that we submitted” and quoted OPR’s finding (from the Sunrise Review report) that “Professional regulation of individual early childhood educators working with children from ages 0 to 8 will yield substantial benefits to children.”
Testimony emphasized three recurring points: (1) licensure clarifies career pathways and communicates educators’ qualifications across settings; (2) licensure aligns standards across mixed delivery systems (private centers, family child care, public pre‑K) and is intended to be “complementary, not duplicative” of Agency of Education (AOE) licensure; and (3) phased implementation and transition licenses are central to avoiding unintended workforce loss.
Susan Titterton explained the proposal’s focus on educators in regulated programs and how it complements existing systems: “Public pre‑K programs are regulated by both CDD and the Agency of Education, and…that is now very much aligned with the professional standards and competencies for early childhood educators that we're proposing.” She and Harrington said educators who already hold an AOE early‑childhood endorsement would not need duplicate licensure under the proposed model.
Providers described practical reasons for licensure. Laurie Metcalfe, executive director of Northshire Day School, said programs carry heavy insurance costs and that “if someone employed by our program harms a child, we're liable.” Metcalfe added that program directors need a way “to know the regulatory history of the people I employ” and that licensed individuals would provide a clearer measure of competency for parents and employers. Metcalfe also told the committee that “40 percent of our children at Northshire Day School receive a specialized service” (speech and language, occupational therapy, physical therapy, early childhood mental health or other supports) and that better‑qualified classroom staff help implement those services throughout the week.
Witnesses recognized workforce anxiety about new requirements and repeatedly pointed to supports already in place: Act 76 funding for compensation, scholarship and apprenticeship programs administered by Vermont AEYC, and a proposed phased timeline with renewable transition licenses. Harrington and Titterton said OPR’s recommended phased timeline and renewal/waiver mechanisms were designed to avoid closures or mass departures from the field.
Committee members asked about timelines and the bill’s specific transition dates; witnesses said their outreach materials predated the bill and that the bill’s transition periods (including a two‑year transition license period and a longer renewal/waiver horizon reflected in the bill text) align with workforce expectations. Harrington said the visual timeline she had shown the committee would be revised to reflect dates in the bill.
There was no committee vote on S.119 during the March 26 hearing. Multiple witnesses told the committee they could return for additional testimony in subsequent days as the committee continues deliberations.
The testimony on S.119 focused on protecting children through clearer educator qualifications while seeking to preserve the existing workforce by relying on transition licenses and funding supports already established by state programs.
