House Human Services hears school leaders’ concerns about funding, capacity and duplicated regulations in draft universal pre‑K bill

Representative Teresa Wood opened the House Human Services committee and invited testimony on draft universal pre‑K legislation. Witnesses from the Vermont School Boards Association, Vermont Superintendents Association and Vermont Principals Association presented joint testimony urging caution about implementation timelines and funding design.

The associations said the committee’s intent to improve access and quality is welcome but warned that universal pre‑K has not, to date, solved equity gaps. "In the area of equity, we agree that universal pre k does not now and never has addressed equity," said Sue Zaglowski, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association. Zaglowski and colleagues asked the committee to ensure any changes include clear rules for oversight and liability when districts coordinate with private providers, because school districts do not control private operators’ day‑to‑day activities.

Witnesses supported including 3‑year‑olds in the program but stressed potential trade‑offs. They said the mixed public/private delivery model raises enrollment and capacity risks if private providers close midyear and noted local districts often absorb costs beyond the state funding level. The testimony urged the committee to require that decisions to keep a child in pre‑K beyond the age of eligibility remain the domain of the child’s education team (including the family and IEP team) rather than an automatic enrollment rule.

On funding, witnesses asked the committee to consult the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) analysis of the early learning system. Zaglowski cited JFO figures that payroll‑tax collections deposited roughly $80.4 million into the childcare contribution special fund for FY25 and that the January 2026 consensus revenue forecast projects about $88.6 million in FY26 and $92.2 million in FY27. She recommended that JFO advise how childcare contribution revenue could support a mixed delivery system and cautioned against unfunded mandates that would cause districts to cut other programs.

Witnesses also raised teacher‑qualification language in draft 4.1, asking the committee to confirm that licensing and endorsement for early childhood teachers remain under the Agency of Education rather than be shifted to another credentialing pathway referenced in S.206.

Committee members pressed witnesses about duplicated regulatory requirements, particularly fingerprinting and background checks. Sandra Cameron, associate executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, said the duplication exists and urged that the state streamline checks so a single background check satisfies both the Department for Children and Families (CDD) licensing and district requirements. Representative Wood said the committee will research whether statute or administrative guidance can eliminate duplication and noted deputy officials may raise federal funding conditions as a complicating factor.

Witnesses described implementation lessons from Act 166 (the earlier pre‑K law), including using pilot districts and a full‑count first year with later reconciliation to reduce immediate fiscal shocks for districts. They reiterated that pre‑K students are currently counted at about 0.46 FTE in the existing funding framework, a figure many said understates the actual cost when districts provide additional services such as meals, transportation and nursing.

The session closed with scheduling and procedural notes: the committee will meet later with JFO staff and attorneys, and Representative Wood said members should expect a possible committee vote the following day to move the measure to Ways and Means for budget decisions.

The committee requested the witnesses’ written testimony and supporting materials be submitted to the committee assistant for the record.