Committee reviews draft 7.2 for prekindergarten funding, asks for drafting and cost clarifications
Loading...
Summary
House Human Services reviewed draft 7.2 of prekindergarten funding language and signaled informal support in a straw poll; staff outlined a JFO contractor study to integrate pre‑K into Vermont’s finance system, reporting dates, and collaborative regional planning with AOE, AHS and Building Bright Futures.
The House Human Services chair opened Friday’s meeting to review draft 7.2 of proposed prekindergarten funding and implementation language and asked members for a straw poll before the language is forwarded to the education bill. Legislative staff highlighted changes and cross‑references to S.214, which now includes a waiver process allowing students who live on the border to attend public pre‑K across state lines when a substantially equivalent program exists.
Why it matters: The language would change how publicly funded pre‑K is delivered and financed in parts of the state, add a JFO‑commissioned study of education finance treatment for pre‑K, and direct cross‑agency operational steps intended to expand capacity where provider supply is insufficient.
Legislative staff described several key provisions. Under a new subdivision, if the supply of prequalified private or public providers is insufficient in a part of the state, relevant school districts must work with pre‑K coordinators, the Agency of Education (AOE), the Agency of Human Services (AHS), and the local Building Bright Futures Council to develop a regional plan to expand capacity, including provisional and emergency licenses from the Standards Board for Professional Educators. Staff said this language is intended to “meet with neighboring school districts and private providers in the region to develop a regional plan,” and to require a district to begin or expand a program if necessary to meet demand (Legislative Council staff).
The draft removes a district‑specific reference to the academic year in tuition/calendar language and instead uses a neutral “academic year” phrase, with staff offering to redraft if the committee later adopts a statewide calendar. The bill would also require joint monitoring and evaluation of programs by AOE, DCF and Building Bright Futures (Legislative Council staff).
The bill includes reporting and implementation steps: a status report to be delivered on 2020‑01‑01 (as described in the draft) was discussed, and staff noted a JFO (Joint Fiscal Office) contract is added so the JFO will hire a contractor with expertise in Vermont’s education finance system to recommend how to account for pre‑K in the finance system. The contractor’s charge, as read into the record, includes evaluating categorical aid, possible inclusion of a pre‑K weight in any foundation formula, ensuring equal payments and standards across public and private providers, increasing access where participation is limited, and supporting a mixed delivery system (Legislative Council staff).
Members pressed drafting and policy questions. One raised a technical drafting concern that the term “region” is not defined and could create ambiguity; a staff attorney and the chair discussed whether the phrase should remain as written or be replaced with “relevant school districts” to reduce risk. Another member relayed a superintendent’s concerns about whether the proposal would be a funded or unfunded mandate and whether transition to a foundation formula might force program reductions. Staff said the draft does not change hours or eligibility for pre‑K and is not itself a service reduction.
A brief, informal straw poll produced majority support: the chair counted nine in favor and one opposed by raised hands. During that exchange a member repeated a rumor that the proposal could cost more than $100,000,000; other members and staff cautioned that the figure was not sourced and suggested it was unlikely to be that high. Committee members agreed to continue drafting and said the language would return for further review when it comes back with the education bill.
Next steps: Staff will prepare the cover memo and the committee expects to see the language again when it is included in the education bill on the floor. The JFO contractor report and the status report dates in the draft remain part of the proposal.
