House Human Services backs seven‑year licensing ramp for private pre‑K, asks JFO to study payment options

The House Human Services committee on resumed consideration of a pre‑K funding and implementation package, settling on a policy that would require licensed early‑childhood teachers for state‑funded public pre‑K while phasing private providers to the same standard over a seven‑year ramp and asking the Joint Fiscal Office to study funding mechanisms.

Committee members debated two options for equalizing payments between public and private pre‑K providers: a two‑tier rate that would pay higher tuition to private providers that staff classrooms with licensed, endorsed early‑childhood teachers, or a single statewide rate that brings all providers to the public‑provider standard. A committee member who introduced Representative Bishop’s language said the two‑tier idea was born of concern about workforce fragility and the mixed delivery system: "I suggested that perhaps we have a two‑tier ... maintaining sort of current level of payments for those who are meeting the current requirements in the private setting but as a private setting is able to meet the enhanced licensed provider in the classroom they would be eligible for the higher higher pay." (Committee member)

Several members pushed back that a differential rate could create "two different classifications of pre‑K" and undermine equity, while others argued a phased approach is more practical. After discussion the committee agreed to a seven‑year phase‑in to reach the full licensing standard and to require JFO to provide a report/check‑in after four years on private providers’ educational attainment. Chair comments indicated broad agreement: "I'm not seeing no nos. Okay. So, um so let's go with the seven years." (Chair)

On financing, Julia Richter of the Joint Fiscal Office told the committee that Act 73 had tasked JFO with contracting a vendor (AIR) to recalculate base and weights and related foundation‑formula elements, but that the current contract explicitly excludes calculating a pre‑K weight. "I will clarify that the scope of work the calculation of a prek weight is outside of the scope of work of the contract that we are currently under contract with," Richter said, and confirmed the AIR deliverable is due to the General Assembly next December. The committee asked JFO to study whether equalized payments should be implemented through a foundation‑formula weight or as categorical aid, and to identify implementation implications and the behavioral effects each choice would have on districts and private providers.

Members also discussed operational details the language must address. Legislative counsel and members flagged questions about non‑prequalified private providers partnering with school districts to meet pre‑qualification requirements, and asked CDD and AOE to clarify whether districts can help providers attain pre‑qualification. The committee addressed background checks and fingerprinting overlaps, proposing language that would let school districts accept a verified CDD background check (subject to an agreed recency threshold) to avoid duplicate fingerprinting.

The committee agreed to submit its legislative language as an attachment to a memo for the education committee’s bill (rather than sponsoring a separate committee bill) so the work will be folded into the broader education bill and return for the committee’s jurisdictional review.

Next steps: the committee adopted the seven‑year ramp with a four‑year status check, instructed JFO to study payment mechanisms (weight vs categorical aid) and report back, asked AOE and CDD to help draft operational language on pre‑qualification partnerships and background‑check acceptance, and will forward the committee’s language to the education committee for inclusion in its bill. Julia Richter said the contractor AIR’s report to the General Assembly is due next December.