Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Upk topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee records intent on UPK after language moves into education bill
Summary
Members of the House Student Services committee said they inserted a finding and legislative intent on universal pre‑K into the recently passed education bill, noting persistent geographic disparities in enrollment and that funding mechanisms will be studied by JFO contractors.
The chair of the House Student Services committee said the panel added a finding and legislative intent about universal pre‑kindergarten to this year’s education bill after committee UPK language did not make it into the final ED bill. "What we ended up doing is creating a section that talks about the inequity for UPK," the chair said during the April 2 meeting.
The move, committee members said, records the panel’s goals without changing the underlying UPK statute now. The committee stressed the change is largely declarative: it establishes legislative intent and notes access and equity concerns while leaving statutory changes and funding mechanisms to future action. A committee member noted that funding work will be handled through the JFO study and contractor support.
Why it matters: Committee members flagged substantial disparities in who accesses pre‑K. "Only 11% of eligible children are enrolled in pre‑kindergarten services — full day — in Essex County," a committee member read from the draft finding, underscoring a sharp geographic gap in full‑day enrollment. Members summarized two types of testimony they had received: one emphasizing enrollment (who is accessing services) and another cataloguing slots and capacity by county.
The committee discussed why low enrollment exists in some places even where capacity may be present — for example, whether families are unaware of the benefit or whether districts are not connecting families to providers. Members said they expect DCF, the Agency of Education (AOE), Building Bright Futures (BBF), and First Children’s Finance to provide additional landscape data to inform next steps.
The committee clarified procedure: the added language will appear in this year’s education bill rather than as an immediate statutory change. Speakers referenced Act 166 and Act 73 as prior statutory context and said the committee bill will not itself alter the underlying UPK statute this session. The committee described a path where funding details would be examined by the Joint Fiscal Office contractor and access issues addressed by a future legislature.
Next steps: Members asked staff to post the witness materials (including a March 11 county capacity map) on the committee web page and to schedule follow‑up testimony and data presentations. The committee did not vote on statutory changes at the meeting and emphasized that the intent language aims to put future legislatures on notice and to guide more detailed work later.
