House Education reviews draft pre-K language that would require licensed teachers and regional planning
Loading...
Summary
The House Education Committee reviewed language from the House Human Services Committee that would add a legislative-intent clause, require licensed/endorsed teachers for publicly funded pre-K, mandate regional capacity planning if providers are insufficient, and require state studies on funding and readiness tied to the foundation-formula timeline.
The House Education Committee on March 31 reviewed draft statutory language from the House Human Services Committee that would add a legislative-intent clause and change how publicly funded prekindergarten is delivered and evaluated in Vermont.
Legislative drafters from the Office of Legislative Council presented a multi-part package that amends Title 16, section 8-29. The draft includes a new legislative-intent statement "that pre-K education is included as an integral part of Vermont's education system," requirements to list prequalified providers on publicly accessible agency websites, and changes to provider prequalification and teacher-licensure requirements.
Katie McLennan of the Office of Legislative Council, who led the walk-through, said the draft splits some requirements between private and public providers initially but moves toward a single standard over time. "The first set of changes are effective this July 1, 2026," McLennan said, and noted other programmatic changes would take effect only if contingencies in Act 73 for the foundation formula are met, a timeline that drafters currently envision around 2028.
Under the draft, publicly funded pre-K (the statute repeatedly frames this as the 10 hours-per-week component) would ultimately be provided by a teacher who is licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or early childhood special education. For private providers the draft initially preserves the option to employ or contract for the services of at least one such teacher, and it explicitly references provisional and emergency licenses as paths that would satisfy the requirement.
Several committee members questioned how those provisional or emergency licenses apply to private centers and raised concerns about rural communities. One member said the proposed requirement "seems to be a problem in rural communities where we don't have a lot of those licensed teachers," and asked whether the timeline and workforce supply had been assessed. McLennan pointed to two built-in studies: a Child Development Division status report due by Jan. 1, 2030 that would evaluate private providers' readiness to meet the later licensure standards, and a directive for JFO to contract with an expert (a $50,000 FY2027 appropriation) to recommend how pre-K should be accounted for within the proposed foundation formula.
Representative Brady, speaking during questions, described a policy tension the committee faces: "We should absolutely be expanding pre-K ... but the foundation formula is intended to constrain and really have all education funding," Brady said, noting the difficulty of adding staffing and potential construction costs while operating under a more constrained funding model.
The draft also adds operational responsibilities for school districts. It would require districts to ensure resident pre-K children have access to publicly funded pre-K either by operating a district program or assisting families to identify prequalified providers, and it encourages districts to maintain or share a pre-K education coordinator. If regional supply is insufficient to meet demand, the draft directs relevant districts to collaborate with the Agency of Education, Department for Children and Families, Building Bright Futures, neighboring districts and private providers to develop a regional expansion plan — and, if necessary, a district "shall begin or expand" a program to meet that demand.
The package contains a provision taken from S.214 to allow the NEK Choice School District to tuition eligible pre-K students to public schools in New Hampshire located within 25 miles of the Vermont border, with the supervisory union administering enrollment and tuition payments and a waiver process available where rules prove impractical.
Other changes in the draft clarify tuition and payment rules: in addition to the publicly funded 10 hours, public and private providers may receive additional payments from parents or guardians for child-care services (a formulation intended to align with the Child Care Financial Assistance Program where appropriate). The draft would also remove geographic restrictions that some districts used to limit pre-K voucher use and would add Building Bright Futures to the set of entities jointly responsible for monitoring and evaluating programs under rulemaking.
Committee members pressed drafters on sequencing: the draft includes the mandate-language that could require districts to begin or expand programs, yet the funding and readiness studies would not report until later. McLennan and members discussed the option of striking sections 3 and 4 (the parts that would impose programmatic mandates contingent on the foundation formula) so the committee could adopt other provisions — the legislative-intent language, the prequalification database, and the study/report requirements — without immediate programmatic mandates.
The presentation closed with a request that drafters circulate a revised version showing any removed language in strikeouts. The committee did not take votes and asked for the revised draft and the study timelines to be clarified in future meetings.
