Committee removes proposed ‘deeming’ language for school-based pre-K background checks, asks agencies to continue work

During a committee meeting on pre-kindergarten policy, lawmakers agreed to remove proposed language that would have deemed school-district background checks sufficient to meet Vermont Child Development Division background-check requirements for pre-qualification of public pre-K programs.

Deputy Commissioner Janet McLaughlin of the Child Development Division, Department for Children and Families, told members she has been part of a multi-agency work group since last June addressing fingerprint-supported background checks and that she had not yet coordinated fully with the Agency of Education or the Department of Public Safety on the new draft language. McLaughlin said federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) standards require fingerprint-supported checks — including an FBI check and a state criminal-history check — that are processed through the Vermont Crime Information Center (VCIC). Those checks, she said, include a mandatory interstate check that can delay clearances by as much as 90 days.

That timing difference has practical effects: McLaughlin said CDD rules do not permit staff to start working alone with children until fingerprint results are returned, while school districts typically allow employees to begin earlier because they may perform non-fingerprint checks pending the interstate result. Committee members and McLaughlin agreed that the time needed to complete fingerprint-supported checks is a major constraint on child-care capacity in Vermont.

Members expressed two recurring concerns about treating school checks as sufficient. First, several lawmakers raised liability and trust questions: school districts or CDD would need to be comfortable relying on another entity’s clearance without retaining the underlying fingerprint-supported report. McLaughlin and other members clarified the draft language was narrowly written to deem school checks sufficient only for the narrow pre-qualification step for public pre-K; the employer would still be responsible for running its own checks in other contexts.

Second, lawmakers noted substantive differences between school and CDD checks beyond timing. Committee discussion highlighted that CDD’s standard includes mandatory checks of interstate criminal-history and certain registries (for example, sex-offender and child-abuse registries), checks that school licensing does not always require. Committee members said CDD’s higher standard was the reason the Division had been the default for licensing and oversight of school-based pre-K, especially for foundational health and safety and for programs serving three- and four-year-olds.

Members discussed options short of legislative deeming, including: creating a separate license type for publicly operated pre-K; incorporating specific health-and-safety requirements into public-school rules; or building a state-level clearinghouse or faster technology solution. McLaughlin said an RFP for a technology system to speed fingerprint processing was expected soon and described a phased approach the multi-agency group is following: (1) internal streamlining, (2) improving timeliness, and (3) addressing duplication.

Lawmakers also raised programmatic questions about scope and impact. One member said 19 school districts currently offer extended child care and noted that some centers operate only UPK (one example cited was programs offering 10 hours per week); members asked how deeming would affect small or part‑time pre-K providers and whether it would change eligibility for child-care financial assistance. McLaughlin cautioned that removing CDD requirements for a program that also operates child care would affect CCDF eligibility and that any change could require a different licensing or implementation approach.

After hearing McLaughlin’s concerns and the legal/practical constraints, the committee head said members had consensus to remove the deeming language from the bill for now, to record in the bill’s cover memo that the committee considered the language, and to highlight ongoing work among the Agency of Human Services (AHS), the Agency of Education (AOE) and the Department of Public Safety. The chair and members agreed to continue the conversation outside the bill-drafting process and to give administration officials time to deliberate with counsel before any policy change.

The committee did not hold a formal roll-call vote on the matter during the session; members instructed staff to include the discussion and the multi-agency work in the cover memo as the bill moves to other committees.