Senate committee hears testimony on S.119 to license early‑childhood educators, with multi‑year transition plan

Senate Committee on Government Operations members on Tuesday heard extended testimony on S.119, a bill to create a state licensure program for early‑childhood educators and a new board within the Office of Professional Regulation (OPR).

Committee members were told the bill would regulate individual educators — not private family arrangements for two or fewer families — and would establish three credential levels (ECE 1, 2 and 3) tied to certificate, associate and bachelor degree thresholds. Supporters said the change aims to raise and standardize educator qualifications and create clearer career pathways.

The bill’s sponsors and witnesses stressed that the proposal focuses on individual accountability and professional standards, while existing child development division (CDD) facility regulation would remain in place. “The proposed licensure structure that you see in S.119 would streamline requirements and it would raise qualifications over time to ensure that individuals have adequate professional preparation to provide quality care and education to young children,” said Jennifer Polan, general counsel for the Office of Professional Regulation.

Why it matters: proponents described three benefits — clearer career pathways for educators, greater predictability for facilities hiring staff, and an enforcement mechanism for misconduct at the individual level. OPR and the secretary of state’s office told the committee that licensing would let the state investigate and sanction individual educators independently of criminal prosecutions or facility enforcement.

Key provisions and timeline

- Credentialing: S.119 defines ECE 1, ECE 2 and ECE 3. An ECE 1 requires a minimum certified/credential program (roughly 120 clock hours and field experience); an ECE 2 requires an associate’s degree (about 60 college credits plus field experience); and an ECE 3 requires a bachelor’s degree (about 120 credits plus field experience). The bill would permit colleges to award credit for prior experience.

- Supervision and scope: ECE 3s would provide mandatory supervision of ECE 1s and guidance to ECE 2s; ECE 2s may lead non‑public programs and supervise ECE 1s; AOE‑licensed public preschool teachers with an early childhood endorsement are exempt from OPR licensure for private settings.

- Transition window and provisional licensing: The bill would not start issuing licenses immediately. OPR staff told the committee licenses would begin in 2027, with a multi‑year transitional regime for existing workers: a two‑year initial transitional license (renewable once), and additional transitional steps that together provide a long runway for incumbents. The statute’s transitional license provisions are slated for repeal in 2033.

- Enforcement, public records and mandated reporting: OPR said licensing would add an enforcement pathway focused on professional standards and make final enforcement actions transparent to the public. At the same time, OPR witnesses said they would not proactively publish applicants’ criminal histories, and they reiterated that mandated reporters will not be prosecuted for making good‑faith child‑safety reports. “We have never prosecuted a mandated reporter for making a report,” Polan said.

- Continuing education, fees and administration: The bill caps continuing education at 24 hours per renewal period (typically a two‑year renewal cycle under OPR practice). It creates a board for the profession, authorizes fees, and includes initial appropriation requests to stand up the program and staff the board and licensing functions; OPR estimated start‑up personnel costs and one‑time IT/rulemaking expenses during the set‑up period.

Questions and concerns from senators

Committee members pressed witnesses on possible duplication with the Agency of Education (AOE) licensure, workforce and staffing impacts, costs for families and providers, and safeguards against retaliatory complaints. Witnesses said: (1) an AOE‑licensed early‑childhood teacher with an active early‑childhood endorsement would be exempt from the OPR license when working in a private early‑childhood setting; (2) OPR would work with AOE to align qualifications and avoid dual licensure where possible; and (3) transitional credits for experience and available financial supports — including programs already in place at Vermont State University and CCV — are intended to reduce barriers for incumbent providers.

Stakeholder perspectives cited in testimony

- Workforce support: OPR and workforce advocates reported strong support from many current early‑childhood professionals; witnesses said more than 100 public comments were submitted during the Sunrise process and public hearings drew substantial participation.

- Business model and costs: Ally Richards, CEO of Let’s Go Kids, told the committee the underlying “true cost of care” typically shows tuition and public subsidies have not fully covered the true operating cost of programs, and that staffing and regulatory ratios drive much of the cost. Richards summarized the problem: “The reason why it’s expensive is so the family payer is the parent. They’re paying more than they can afford, and it doesn’t cover the cost of running the business.”

- Program alignment and student outcomes: Several senators and witnesses cited evidence that higher‑quality early education improves school readiness and long‑term outcomes; committee members asked for more data linking early education participation to later student outcomes.

No final action recorded

The committee did not take a final vote on S.119 during the hearing. Witnesses told members they will return with additional testimony on subsequent hearing days and that OPR and stakeholders will continue rulemaking and outreach if the bill advances.

Ending note

Committee members asked OPR to supply the Sunrise report executive summary, supporting charts that map duties and supervision across ECE levels, and suggested bringing in providers to walk the committee through typical program budgets and the “true cost of care” analysis at a future hearing.