House Education reviews Vermont pre-K law: eligibility, providers, funding mechanics

The House Education Committee on Wednesday heard a statutory overview of Vermont’s prekindergarten program and related implementation issues from Office of Legislative Council staff ahead of a scheduled pre-K report presentation.

The briefing explained who is eligible for the state's pre-K program, the minimum publicly funded service level, what qualifies a provider to receive state pre-K tuition, and how pre-K enrollment and tuition are counted and funded within school budgets.

Katie McGlynn, Office of Legislative Council, told members that the statute defines “prekindergarten” services as those designed to provide developmentally appropriate early learning based on Vermont’s early learning standards and that “all prekindergarten children in the state are eligible for Vermont’s pre-K program.” McGlynn added, “This is an opt in program,” meaning families must choose to enroll their children to receive publicly funded pre-K services.

Under the statute summarized to the committee, an enrolled pre-K child must receive publicly funded pre-K services for not fewer than 10 hours a week for 35 weeks of the year. Publicly funded pre-K can be provided either by a public school program or by a prequalified private provider. McGlynn said a prequalified program must meet statutory minimums and the agencies’ joint rules, which require at least one of the following: accreditation from the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) or at least four stars in the Department for Children and Families’ (DCF) STARS system; providers with three STARS may qualify if they have an approved plan to reach a higher STARS level. “STARS means Step Ahead Recognition System,” McGlynn said, adding that “as you move up the ladder, the services provided are more robust for families.”

The committee heard that licensed pre-K providers must employ or contract with at least one teacher licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or early childhood special education. Registered family child care homes that are prequalified but do not employ a licensed teacher must receive regular active supervision and training from a licensed early childhood teacher. Additional prequalification conditions described to the committee include twice-annual child development assessments with the Agency of Education (AOE) tool, twice-annual progress reporting to parents or guardians, participation in trainings, permitting on-site unannounced visits by AOE, DCF, or school staff, and annual financial reporting to AOE.

Legislative counsel explained how tuition and student counts differ between pre-K and K–12. Pre-K tuition is paid according to the statute referenced as 16 BSA 8 29, while K–12 tuition follows separate Title 16 sections (16 BSA sections 8 21–8 28). A child receiving 10 hours or more of pre-K counts as one full-time equivalent for average daily membership (ADM) calculation purposes; a child enrolled at least six but fewer than 10 hours is prorated for ADM, and a child enrolled fewer than six hours is not included. Counsel also noted that in the long-term weighted ADM calculation pre-K currently carries a negative weight, which reduces the district’s weighted count relative to older grades.

Committee members pressed on how those technical funding rules affect district incentives. Counsel offered an example: when a district has no on-site pre-K and pays the statutory tuition voucher (she cited a figure “something around $3,600” as an illustrative number used in explanation), the district may count the student differently for budgeting; in the example the student was counted as 0.466 in a prior calculation context. Speakers cautioned that those example figures were illustrative of how the mechanics work and that the precise local effects depend on district choices and budget calculations.

Members asked about the commonly used phrase “mixed delivery system.” Counsel said the term is in frequent use but not legally defined in statute and recommended members ask speakers to define it when they encounter it in testimony. The briefing also explained a geographic element in statute: school districts and the agencies (AOE and Agency of Human Services) may jointly determine regional boundaries within which districts fund pre-K tuition to prequalified providers; districts also retain discretion to pay tuition outside those boundaries if a child cannot access pre-K locally.

McGlynn reviewed the pre-K implementation committee created under Act 76 and summarized its membership (co-chairs from AOE and AHS, representatives of principals, superintendents, school boards, teachers’ association, special education administrators, early childhood organizations, private pre-K providers, family representatives, and others) and its responsibilities. The committee is charged with examining delivery options for expanding access to pre-K, recommending minimum hours that should constitute a full school day for pre-K and kindergarten, identifying capacity and infrastructure needs, estimating costs and sustainable funding options, oversight structures, and making recommendations on transitioning and timelines; the statute directs consideration of whether the state can provide pre-K through public schools by July 1, 2026.

The briefing touched on recent changes to the Child Care Financial Assistance Program (CCFAP) under Act 76 that affect family copayments: counsel said a top copay was described as $5.75, and that families with annual gross income less than or equal to 175% of the federal poverty level have no family copay. Counsel also said a notable change is that the family copay is assigned to the household as a whole and does not increase if more than one eligible child in the family is enrolled in child care. Committee members noted families can receive both the universal pre-K benefit and CCFAP subsidies depending on income and eligibility.

Members asked practical questions about program length and quality: the state board rule that sets length of the K–12 school day defines a “full day” for kindergarten in a way that can be as little as two instructional hours a day if the week’s total reaches 10 hours; committee members raised this as relevant when discussing what “full day” pre-K would mean in statute or rule. Several members also raised staffing and capacity concerns, especially for 3-year-old pre-K slots, and the difficulty some districts have in operating those programs.

The committee was briefed on reporting requirements placed on prequalified providers, including twice-annual child assessment reporting to AOE and annual financial reporting to AOE for monitoring and evaluation. Counsel repeatedly noted that rulemaking (AOE/DCF joint rules) provides additional detail on prequalification and implementation.

Committee members were told a fuller pre-K report and recommendations would be presented at a follow-up meeting; the statutory committee’s work and any legislative changes would be informed by that report.

The presentation supplied statutory context and operational details but did not include committee votes or formal policy changes. Members signaled interest in further analysis of funding mechanics, student weighting, and options for expanding hours and capacity.