Committee presses staff, JFO on how draft 4.1 would fund and define public pre‑K

A legislative committee spent the session scrutinizing draft 4.1 of its pre‑kindergarten bill, centering debate on funding mechanics, the statutory definition of public pre‑K and how private and registered home providers would qualify and access provisional licensing.

Members asked the Joint Fiscal Office to clarify whether the Act 73 foundation formula as drafted already assumed pre‑K costs were included in the base education amount, and whether making pre‑K a categorical aid would require adjustment to the base. Office of Legislative Counsel advised that the choice to treat pre‑K as categorical aid or fold it into the foundation formula is a policy decision for the legislature and that JFO should be asked to confirm what Act 73 accounted for.

"If the foundation formula were to spring to life on July 1, 2028 without any changes, you would still be funding pre‑K through the base amount plus a weight for pre‑K students," a staff advisor said, noting the then‑current pre‑K weight used in earlier calculations. Committee members highlighted that categorical aid can make payments easier to track and help ensure parity between private and public providers.

The draft also draws questions about provider standards and transparency. Committee members clarified that pre‑qualification criteria are an OR list (for example, NEYC accreditation or a four‑star rating), not conjunctive requirements, and asked that the bill explicitly reference the Department for Children and Families (DCF) and Agency of Education (AOE) websites for publicly accessible lists of pre‑qualified providers.

Data presented during the meeting showed 35 registered family childcare homes offering UPK in the state: 20 already hold AOE educator licenses with early‑childhood endorsements and 15 do not. Members said they want parity in qualifications but also to preserve pathways so registered home providers can access provisional licensing and mentoring supports. "We want the same rules but to ensure they have access to it," a committee member said, arguing that statutory language should encourage access rather than overhaul licensing rules retained in agency rulemaking.

Members also debated whether private providers may charge families for hours beyond the funded pre‑K hours and how that interacts with the Child Care Financial Assistance Program (CCAP). Several speakers raised equity concerns if districts vary in how many hours they fund and whether parents who do not seek assistance would be left to shoulder costs.

The committee identified several drafting and technical issues—definition language that should be tied explicitly to public funding, whether some prescriptive items belong in statute or rule, and the need for JFO to report on what Act 73 assumed for pre‑K funding. The meeting paused for floor business, and members said they will return to the draft after seeking JFO and AOE clarifications.

The committee did not finalize policy choices during the session; it recorded where language needs to be clarified and which decision points should be addressed by JFO or through future drafting rounds.