Legislative counsel walks House Ways and Means through draft prekindergarten statute that shifts private-provider payments to childcare fund

Legislative counsel presented draft statutory language to the House Ways and Means committee on Feb. 4, 2026, proposing a set of changes to Title 16 (education) and Title 33 (human services) that would change how Vermont funds and administers publicly funded universal prekindergarten (UPK).

Counsel summarized the status quo: the UPK entitlement enacted in 2014 requires districts to provide access to at least 10 hours per week for eligible 3- and 4-year-olds (and some 5-year-olds not yet enrolled in kindergarten) and, under current law, tuition payments for UPK—whether to public or private prequalified providers—flow through the education fund and the student's school district.

The draft language preserves the 10-hour entitlement but proposes several structural changes. It would narrow the statutory definition of a prekindergarten child (the draft focuses on 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds not yet enrolled in kindergarten), require each school district to maintain or contract for a universal prekindergarten coordinator, and preserve the prequalification standards (NAEYC accreditation or 4 STARS; a 3-STARS program may participate with an approved plan). Importantly, the draft splits funding responsibilities: prequalified public providers would continue to be funded through the education fund via school districts, while prequalified private providers would be funded by the childcare contribution special fund (the fund used for the Child Care Financial Assistance Program, CCFAP) and administered by the Department for Children and Families.

Under the draft, DCF would pay tuition to prequalified private providers for up to 10 hours per week for 35 weeks from the childcare contribution special fund. The agency would determine whether to pay at the UPK rate or the CCFAP rate "first prioritizing what would be best for families and second prioritizing what would be best for the provider," counsel said, and would enter into provider agreements covering quality assurance and enrollment notifications.

The draft also ties several education-funding changes to implementation of the foundation formula. Counsel explained that the draft repeals the current pre-K grade-level weight (noted in current law as negative 0.54) so that, if and when the foundation formula takes effect, pre-K students would be treated similarly to K–12 for base-and-weight calculations. Counsel said many of the foundation-related provisions would only take effect if the foundation formula's contingencies are met and flagged the draft's effective date (July 1, 2027) as needing cleanup to reflect those contingencies.

Members raised operational concerns. Representatives asked whether private-provider payments through DCF could be sustained by the childcare special fund and whether DCF could administer payments without creating gaps in enrollment. Counsel and staff repeatedly described the administrative complexity, particularly the "double-dipping" provision in the draft that would prevent the same 10 hours of UPK from also being paid via CCFAP, and warned that reconciling different rate structures and payment timing would be administratively challenging.

Several representatives sought clarity on family access and special-education protections when families choose private providers, whether families could forfeit services, and how students would be counted in a district's ADM when attending private providers. Counsel said some of those operational questions are "questions for the field" and recommended follow-up with district administrators and agencies to understand how implementation currently works.

Next steps: committee chairs said they would revisit the statutory language with more time for study, request agency rule and fiscal analysis (JFO was requested to provide further modeling), and take additional questions and testimony at a later meeting.