 Should we squat through the whole bill? Let's do the whole bill. Yeah, okay. Okay. So for the record, Jim Demmerer, that's console. We're doing a markup of draft 8.4 of your commutal on PK. And to say your voice, I'm gonna say you don't necessarily have to read the whole thing, but there's the purpose to everybody. Okay. There's the purpose, everybody. Does anybody have any questions on the purpose? What is realign, you know what I mean? This was to change our language from clear bifurcate. Yeah. Now we're gonna move over to hybrid. So the system would reflect that change. Okay, so if we wanna talk about that or we don't wanna talk about that at all. What is it that's, I guess we'd bifurcate it public. Public for education and privates. But I'm not stuck on this. I'm just wondering if there's a path towards that, how we can word something in this bill that says we are working for us having the agency of education eventually be responsible for the education or delivery in private and public schools. And then, I think it's in the bill. Okay. It is on the path. It is. It doesn't. It doesn't. No path made. Yeah. Yeah. Here you go, Dunn. I'm sorry, I'm not understanding. Is it in the study committee? No. Okay. At the date certain, they're bifurcated. They're bifurcated, but so that AOE is responsible for the education or delivery of private centers. Overseas the educational. Yeah. So where it works in this bill is that AOE oversees both public and private. And AHS also oversees private. There's joint oversight of private and sole oversight by AOE of public. So let me just clarify what I'm thinking. Just see if it's in here. Okay. That eventually relatively, hopefully soon that the agency of education will be responsible for the delivery of the educational for all of this bill without the Vermont educational currently at standards in both public and private. And that AHS will only be responsible for health and safety in the private. No. Now what this bill says. Okay. I thought, that's not the direction this bill takes. I know. I'm just wondering. What it says is on the private side is joint regulatory oversight of pre-K by the AHS and AOE. Education, health and safety then. Yep. Yep. I recall agencies. Other privates. So this is go as far as you're going in terms of having AOE be solely responsible. And how, I mean, is there any way we could get to where AOE is oversight? I mean, you're using public dollars to give private entities. You know, first, that's one thing that children in private schools, private pre-Ks are not necessarily with the licensed teacher and feel like there's inequity there. Yes. And that's why we're going to be getting data to see how inequitable it is, to see, that's what the study. That's what we've been doing. So out of course, how do you make where the AOE is then responsible for all the education and health. That would be for the next committee. Is there any way to ask that or phrase this so they look at that? Or do we recommend that or I recommend it? Just like that. The challenge really is that pre-K that's delivered in a private setting, is generally, there's no, there's really no such thing as a private standalone pre-K. Generally delivered within a broader center. So that center is regulated 24 seven by AHS. The idea of sort of pulling AHS out of that 10 hours and only having AOE when really it's a seamless, it's a seamless program. What do we do in the hands of the experts in the sense to figure that out? And this is where we can get a little bit too much to tell them exactly which part of it. Okay, I'll just say this one more time and I won't say anything and I'll do whatever the committee, I feel like it's inequitable that there are children in the public schools getting pre-K education and have access to a license to teachers. Whereas there are children in the private sector, probably are having a prime time. I'm not, but I'm not getting the equivalent educational deliverance of educational curriculum in the private. And I think that's inequitable and I think it's unfair and it's public dollars in paying both of those. Which is why we are saying kind of, we have guidance that says the teacher needs to be present. We have a lot of interpretations of what a teacher is present for. What we want to do is get a picture of what's happening in the pre-K programs now and what's the gap to be able to get there. Because if we all of a sudden say, needs to be there, during the 10 hours, all on, there's some programs that will collapse because they're not ready. So we're trying, this is what this report is trying to do. This report back is trying to do what's happening now, how are people interpreting present in a program? And what's the gap to actually make it so that it is, as you would say, equitable. But at the moment we can't, if we demand that, we will collapse programs. And that's not an attention. I'm just, just one more thing. I mean, I feel like in these two reports it says, I mean in this final report that we demand in the, the 217 recommended reforms, the 217 had said that. So, yeah, it does. You understand that the main issue is that, to all of a sudden require this, a, you're not sure they can find people, be, can't afford to do it. Yeah. So you would literally put, potentially put it in a lot of places. Right. I'm not saying everything is right. We're not saying this teacher, I'm just saying the oversight. So it's, we need a glide path. Right. We need a glide path. We've taken the glide path out because it made a lot of people nervous. Yep. And so we left, we took out the glide path and it said, report back to us. And I think we just, we'll get to that report back. And then why don't you hold your questions on that until we get to the report back. Yeah, I'm, yeah. I know it's the equity issue that is just making it so crazy. Yeah. Go ahead. Equity isn't happening overnight. I ain't comment on it, I'm saying it for purpose. For real, I got to that. Okay. All right. So. This is super fast. Do you need to add that third study up there? It says require reports on and you've got two out of the three reports that were. All right. Teachers of vision and. We're doing that visioning study too. Yeah. Yeah. Can I have that? Pause all of them. Mm-hmm. Thank you. Good catch. Yay. It's an editor. I haven't had that. Yes. I think it's an editor. Every committee should have one. Yeah. Two. Two of them. Five, yeah. Good. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. We're almost through page one, folks. We haven't really worked on any real hard ones here. I do. Okay. So, definitions are here. The one that we talked about quite a bit is the definition for each child. And we set it to 504 category here to allow us five year olds to fill in an ID plan. Any comments on this? It aligns it. Everybody okay with this definition? Okay. Okay. We're not gonna come back to that then. Private. Any comments on a private provider of public provider definitions? Mm-hmm. We can go back to what I've made of nature. Okay. Comfortable that. Okay. All right. Okay, then the section here hasn't changed much really, we don't know a lot. This is the whole thing about telling it to 10 hours to 35 hours a week or 35 weeks a year. Sorry. That's about how it's paid by the district of residence. It's got private programs, public programs. So this language is basically curl up with some changes just for a fair few reasons. Okay. Okay. We'll get to your changes more over here. So this is where you have the notification that the public program is expanding or beginning a program. That's A and B of a private provider is beginning or expanding a program. That's required to get the application. Any comments on this? Okay on that? Okay. Okay, there's already here. And then we have the definition and C and line five of what expansion means. Okay. Okay. Then we go into the provider qualification requirements. So the requirement in on line 20 and 21 are the requirements for a private provider. And so it's a connected NACI or four stars. That's our private. Private. And then you've got the requirement as in current law as we understand it to be about the requirement to have a teacher. So it's basically your question of current law. So for a service program, it says at least one teacher. I didn't say what they do or how many hours. For a private program, likewise, though they just say that they can use that teacher to receive active supervision and training. So we took the three hours out of the assembly. Yep. We went back to current law on this until we get the resources to study and then you can decide what to do next. Any comments on that? Comments? I don't want you to hear you say it again. This is now a better reflect current law. Correct. Correct. And the license, and the licensed is what kind of licenses is it? It either has to be a teacher of licensing endorsed in early childhood education or an early childhood special education. A licensed teacher. A B.A., right? Yeah. Okay. Yep. So we're on page six? Yep. Okay, seven. We're all right with that, right? Public provider qualifications are again either NACI or four stars. And again, current law, employment contracting for the services of the equivalent teacher is licensed. And new requirement, needs, safety, and quality will specifically see for a vegetation. And we'll come on to this later on. We have the requirement that they map to, do they set possible map to AHS requirements for child care centers or private. Is this for the public? Yeah, okay. Okay. Okay. The only further requirement in two A and B for a few services in A and A and E and B the folks in this website list the providers. They're qualified. And the requirements that the provider is don't have to qualify if they're advised to be agency. So the each post? The east post? Yeah. And the providers, these have to provide notification if they're in a letter of compliance. And the language are building by futures, so they're going to be linking into these websites and making it searchable, et cetera. So a parent go to one place to find this information. I have a call in to the library futures. Unfortunately, Mitt Morgan is away. I'm hoping to hear from Katie Mobs. I don't know if we will get that before. So there's concerns on that they may need to go upstairs. You've just asked about their capacity to do that. Do you always name someone in this, like if building by futures didn't exist anymore, do you, is it better to define their role as opposed to a specific agency? I haven't done, so I'm just, no, it doesn't matter. We can just name them. What would you do? Okay. In this case, they're gonna, somebody has to do it. Right. So. Okay. Yep. Is there any conversations? They would go into the sub D, which is tuition, budgets, and ADM. It's a reminder this hasn't changed right of much from the current law. So this is a session that requires the district of residence to make payments to other providers. And it talks about how you deal with that from a budget standpoint, how you conduct that for ADM. All of that is the same as current law. And the changes here are just conforming changes, really. So, let's go through here. The one difference to current law that's not worthy is this, 920, which says a private provider or a public provider that is not the child's district of residence may receive a digital payment. So it allows publics to charge for pre-K for the additional hours that was not permitted before. So if they have, let me clarify, so if I send my child to a program that has a half-day program. Which program? A public school nearby that's not in my district. And they have a half-day program. Do I have to pay for that? I think they charge you for the hours in excess of the 10 hours. Yeah, up to them, whether they charge you or not. And then we added this new subdivision of five, which is a requirement to use uniform forms of processes, which are developed by the Agency of Education. And then this now is standing clause on 2016 that allows them to not use those uniform forms fully if it would be a newly burdensome or costly. Okay, forms that we got in the comments that concerns the uniforms, universal forms. Go right in a little later, we describe how we want them to come up with the new forms. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yes, okay. Then we have this limitation of liability provision here, so this one says here that the only responsible in the school district is to pay that tuition to their provider. And the school district should not be responsible to monitor the administration of the PK program by that provider. It should be immune from liability for that provider's administration of this program. So that's basically the area where you just not monitor the private program? No. Is that what it's saying? No, it still does. It says the public school districts do have to monitor our programs. So if something bad happens at that private program, you think if they want to come back and sue you, you let my child go to that program, this says I'm not responsible for what's happening. Correct, yeah. But is the AOE still monitoring that kids are getting caught? Certainly. AOE, it doesn't change anything in here related to our decisions about monitoring. AOE still monitors both private and public programs. Okay, that's one of the things. Yeah, this just makes sure that the school district doesn't sue. Okay. Yep. Is that supposed to be forced to contract with these providers? It's okay, Serena. We'll work through it. And I do want to give you an opportunity to ask you questions. I am also paying attention over time. So this section here, E, on regulatory oversight, A is, one is unchanged from the previous draft, which is the agency of education has sold regulatory oversight of public pre-K programs, except to the extent that it participates in CCFAP or in STARS, in which case it's under AHS for those program elements. So as soon as you take CCFAP in your building, you bring the agency of human services in with you? Only to the extent of those program requirements. For those pre-K? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the end for STARS. And then here's where we talk about DCF. So DCF and the agency of education have joined regulatory oversight of private pre-K programs. Yeah? At one point, we tried to be more specific about it, but it made it really clumsy. And I mean, I'm just gonna say again, maybe I was the only one that heard from superintendents, but they find this very cumbersome. No, they find AHS being involved in public pre-K cumbersome. Not that. This is what the superintendents have been saying. So this takes AHS out of problems. Okay. All right, I'm sorry. Unless you have an after-school program where you're second and CCFAP, that's different. No. Okay. Thank you, Chris. And then we've got joint rulemaking by the two agencies. And I'm open to all the rules. We've been through a number of times. I'll scroll through them though. Slowly, if you've got comments and the rules, just stop me. So, I'll just do what they're about though. A is about helping private providers be qualified by giving them teacher supports, though public programs helping private with teaching supports. B is about providing opportunities for effective press participation. C is a process, basically, around how you enroll your children in a pre-K and get counted toward medium. Then D is a process about the annual statewide tuition for pre-K, that's the $3,400 a year. D is around including a cost for your budget if you're a public program. F is around reporting to the AOE of your expenditures. G is around the administrative process for complaints and both the private and public sectors here. And these are all really just technical changes that we're doing with this redumbering. Well, at least I'm sure you just, yeah, numbers has changed here because numbers has hung along very well in our staff, but. And then H is the monitoring, which goes along your registered oversight philosophy. So, this requires that there be monitoring of public programs, only by AOE. They'd be monitoring of private programs by both AOE and AHS, and then they jointly report back to you as you did the results of that monitoring. And the requirements for what is monitored on line 16 is the same as it has been in current law, with the one change that you've added on line five here, the reference to social and emotional development. I is a process to document powers for children in pre-K. J is to establish health and safety requirements for public and private providers. And this is to make sure that everybody understands H. H is to monitor it, yeah. Yeah, and the monitoring, do you understand that what we're doing here with monitoring? Any questions on that? You have to have a comparable systems. AOE monitors, public and both monitor private. Just sometimes in those things where it says publicly funded, it gets people confused, but that's just the public dollars that are going to the private program. Okay, we good with that? Just, can you help me understand on the ground, how does that work? Like with the AHS and the AOE, both monitoring private. How does that work? I'm a public program, I'm running a public program, and I'm not doing anything to see that stuff. The monitoring person is going to be the agency of education. I understand how it's set up, but actually, I mean, teachers from the private and the publics get together and kind of decide on how children do it. I mean, how is it monitored? A lot of that is through the test scores and things like that. Not the, the early learning standards, TS goal is how individual students are doing. Okay, so both of them would look at those test scores and both of them would come up with a remediation plan. Well, this monitoring, a lot has to do with, it could be after safety monitoring. Do you remember when Kate Rogers came in and presented the monitor and had some updated monitoring? But they'll also be doing educational monitoring. Yes. Okay, together. I'm just trying to figure out how that's going to work. Some of that is called desk monitoring. I have rid of them. But everybody's required to participate. It's in rule, it's already, it's... Okay. I think there are things that go much deeper later. This is kind of the review. Okay. So we're good with AHS. Okay, we're through AHS. We talked about I. We talked about J. That's about K. No, we didn't talk about K. K is that to establish a process for remedial action, which could include sanctions and penalties if the provider is filled to comply with the program quality requirements. So we heard a little bit about that from K. And then L is new to establish a process to verify the public and private providers satisfy and continue to satisfy the program quality requirements. Is that helpful? Is that, does that work out there? And then three here says that adopting these rules, they should be aligned, except they said there are compound reasons that they should be aligned. Can you just go for a comment on that one? Okay. F and G are unchanged, current law. AHS is unchanged for current law too, except for some performing changes that allows geographic regions, that's there. And that takes us to section two, wow. All right, section two, yeah. 18 page, 18 page section one. Okay, section two is taking the public programs outside of DCF's jurisdiction. So we are now out of volume 16 and we are into volume 33. And that's right here, except to the extent that they participate in, that's interesting, there should be a change here. Number six says, this takes them out unless they participate in CFAP. I think we also have to give a star here too. You don't need a license. Could you go back up to solution? Yeah, sure. So this is saying that you don't need a license or a registration to operate a child care center and then we have a list of exemptions. So if you're a public provider taking the CCFAP money, you don't need a license or registration as a child care facility. So we're going to get out of that unless? I think we want the exemption, where they can take out a license. Unless, so you don't need a license for that anyway. So you wouldn't have to have a, So this is saying if you're a public provider, you don't need a license, it's an exemption, unless you participate in CCFAP, then you do need a license. Or you do need a license for that? And do you need a license to do the stores? Well, that would be a policy decision. Do you, if there's a public provider who's using Starks to qualify under the Pre-K program, would you want them to need a license or registration as a child care facility? Or would you like to keep them outside of that? They still have a school board in principle, the superintendent, Mr. And that's sort of out of the scope of the Pre-K anyway. Okay, so do we need a language change? Quick one here, just clerical, should, so under section two, B, there's just two things, shouldn't it be one and two, not five and six? So I'm just wondering, so on page 19, line 15, shouldn't it be a one in parentheses because there's just two subcategories to B? I guess I'm just confused about some five and six. The ellipses on 14 signify that language has been omitted. So one through four have been omitted because they aren't relevant to the bill. So we don't show the language in the bill. So. I see, so you're, so there's one through four in this that'll be there in the statute? Yes. We're just adding five and six and you're not showing. Well, we're adding six and five, we're making a change too, which is why we're showing it because on line 19, there's an add and added. Okay. Yep. So we've seen that one through four in a previous bill. It's existing law, so you might not have seen it in recently. I'm just curious who's exempted, but it's fine. We could pull it up and look at it, yeah. Yeah, I mean, I guess we're not changing anything there but that explains it, thank you. Okay. All right. So we will think about whether we have changed the language of page 20 to deal with stars. Okay, going on to section three. Again, this is the theme of this definition of pre-K. So this now is just cross-referencing the definition of pre-K children as defined earlier. So we don't have, we don't have definitions in two places. And then we've got the requirement in section four for the section of education to develop these uniform forms and processes on every form of March 15, 2021. And they have to do that in collaboration with private pre-K's pre-K coordinators which are a representative of different geographic regions in the state. So in comments on that. Section five is health and safety. So. Section five is health and safety rules. This requires that the agency of education. We're supposed to be there, we have people that bear gifts. Oh, that's right. One of you reads. Thank you. We'll bring our afternoon wine, maybe. Okay. Health and safety is being aligned. The rules for AOE are being aligned to the rules for private, the private side. Okay. Again, unless there are, the following reasons, they should be different. And then again, on this report, on the availability of qualified pre-K teachers. This is a finance and purpose section. There's a long lead too about this. I'll pause here, let me read through that. See if there are any changes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Do you need a license? And then the next one. Okay. So we have here's, we might help you to put these up last year. So we can just act on that. Okay. So we, you don't need a license. Yes. Or you need a license, except for your political life. Yeah, okay, yeah. Is that just the same solution as you said? Okay. Okay, here it is. I have the same question. Yeah, so, hold that question. Yeah, yeah. So this is basically just kind of a statement of finding something. Yeah, yeah. So you find that, this best practice to deliver through high quality effective direct instruction by qualified educators who use evidence-based practices within intentionally designed early learning events, which is similar to the language that came from here. So that's what we're shooting for here. That's our goal. Okay. However, here's the however part. You said we're gonna talk, we're gonna answer Chris's question later. Yeah, I think let's just get through it. So the findings section here, however, we recognize that there are challenges. So this is for the quality that we hold, however there are challenges. Therefore, what are we gonna do about it? We're commissioning a study, okay? So we're looking at, we believe in high quality education programs delivered by qualified teachers. We have a problem, we're not there yet. Therefore, what are we gonna do? This is the what are we gonna do part. Let's go through that. Okay, so Ron B, let me just read this. Yeah. That was here. So it says on before December 15, 2020, the agency of human services and the agency of education shall study and report to you. One, the number of teachers in the state who are licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or early childhood special education, we define that as a qualified teacher, okay? First is the number of them in the state. Two is the number of private pre-K education programs in the state and the number of qualified teachers employed by or contract to live those programs. Three is the average number and range of direct instruction hours pre-K children receive from qualified teachers employed by or contract to live certain based child care programs and family child care homes, qualified pursuant to the section we went through. And do we have a definition of direct instruction or do we have some understood perspective? You don't have a definition. I assume that people know what that is, but the data, if you want. Four is the number of public pre-K education programs in the state and the number of qualified teachers employed by or contract to live those programs. Five is an estimate of the additional number of qualified teachers that private pre-K education programs would need to employ or contract with if those programs were required to use the services of teachers for direct instruction. Six is the financial impact to private pre-K programs and families of requiring those these programs to employ or contract with teachers for direct instruction. Seven is if the supply of qualified teachers to staff private pre-K programs is less than those necessary. Or the financial impact of this requirement poses a significant burden on those programs for families. Recognizations on how to achieve the goal of having those programs provide direct instruction to students for qualified teachers in a cost-effective manner. And eight, taking account your goal to have pre-K education be delivered through the implementation of high quality, effective direct instruction by qualified educators who use evidence-based practices within intentionally designed, early learning environments. Recommendations on how many hours of direct instruction by qualified teachers should be required in a public school that offers pre-K education, that's the initial line there. B, a service-based child program and C, a family child care home. And D, sorry. C, a child care home where the operator of the home is qualified as a teacher and D, a child care home where the operator of the home is not qualified as a teacher. Okay, so Rita, this is where your questions are. This is getting to, hey, we really think that a program should look like this. Wait a minute, it doesn't look like we're there yet. What are we gonna do? We're gonna start to find out what's the gap. How many are needed, how many are there, how many hours are we doing, what's the supply, and if we don't have that and we've got a ways to go, how are we gonna achieve the goal? This is what this thing's meant to say. If it looks like we've got 15 years before we're gonna get there, then maybe we need to figure out something we might not do. Oh, I thought you said it looks like. No, I don't. Okay, let's say, let's say, we've got a lot of preschoolers that have to grow up and go to college and wanna be pre-K teachers. So I'm just wondering if there would help to have any, if there are questions in there about a provisional instance, like where could a teacher be teaching and be getting professional development in terms of. There would probably be probably how to achieve the goal that might be something that would come up. And the other question I have in my hand is for you to answer in two minutes. Why don't we get through the last one? It's okay, we can start. Yeah, okay. We can say for a few minutes if I gotta go. So we can talk about that. Yeah, okay, yeah. So the next section is a new section. It's another report by the same group, by the two agencies, by the same date. It's in November 15, 2020. And includes their five-year vision for, this will change for pre-kindergarten, should I say. And then the capacity of kindergarten programs to take on four-year-olds will change. And then three, bridging the gap. You have some changes on this. I haven't already, I can't go yet. Yeah, that's fine. But I think there was a concern that people would think that when we were talking childcare, we were only talking about preschoolers, but we're actually talking about the whole gamut of pre-k. I mean, of childcare, so I don't know if there needs to be language that includes infants and toddlers, or. What chapters can bridge, though? We're looking at, oh, and worker support should be, we've changed that, too. What are we talking about? You said supports for working families. Yeah, yeah. Supports for working families, yeah. And parent engagement. Yeah. We keep running into this problem in looking at the pre-k program, filling that gap, is there another, do we need to be looking at the broader view? I know we had a study, we had the study done at the Building Right Futures, or there was a, what was the report done a few years ago? Do you remember? The Blue River Commission? The Blue River Commission. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We'll be doing that. So I think we might have, I think we might have to customize this, that might help with that, that I'll get in a minute, because I don't know where you have to go. Okay. Unless you can quickly, do you think you can quickly say what it was there? Or we'll come back to it, if we need to get it, just let us know. Okay. And then, it's actually, AAC's report by the advisory group, the one created in Accent 173, in collaboration with a bunch of folks and pre-K education providers, the private sector, pre-K coordinators, pre-K teachers, looking at two things. First, how to ensure that a student who attends pre-K out of district of residence gets special education services without cost to the parent. Two, how to ensure that we're not overpaying for pre-K given the fact that the census grant under Accent 173 covers pre-K, and there's a separate provision of statute that covers pre-K, the two week grant. So, that's how to deal with that. Those two funding sources. Yeah, and a little bit more on that, just to know the difference between pre-K is calculated in the way K-12 is calculated and between the 4060 and then they do the ADM then with pre-K, and it ends up being very little money and not cutting close, which was what Karen Parker was talking about. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, and then this section nine is your new section with the grant program. We went through this this morning. I've heard a couple of edits on this already. So, this would create, this would basically be what would be recast here a little bit at seed funding to start to create a position of a pre-K coordinator on a regional basis. Regional basis being across three SUs or more. So, this has to change a little bit for language, which I'll figure out. The administration of the program is agency of education. What's not here, and what needs to come in is talking to, or we have been calling you for this testimony. The grant will be a two year grant. The first year of the grant will be $90,000. Yeah. First year of the grant will be $90,000 of dollars. The second year of the grant will be $30,000. So, 120 total over two years per applicant. Remember, three more SUs. And the total appropriation will be $480,000 of dollars. So, that's before the change, which I'll do, but that's basically, I think for you. Just thinking that's four, that's four grants. And then the effective date. So, I need to go. I can revise this for tomorrow. So, if you can take a vote on it tomorrow. Do you have any more notes? Thank you, I'll just, okay, I'll get it back to you. Thank you. Okay, thank you so very much. How are we doing? Is Katie going to go over the date with us? Oh, right. Yeah, are you going? Oh, yeah, I had a question. Yeah. Jack, you have Chris's question. Yeah. So, I just want to make sure I understand. So, this bill, which echoes current statute, is silent on the number of hours. And the specifics of the licensed teachers who are present at or providing instruction in a coaching, whatever, in the privates. So, is it that, I just want to understand that, is it that that was later promulgated in the rule, and that's where that appears? Or has this practice just evolved in the field? Where is the whole, where is that written down? And then I understand that public schools, higher licensed teachers just appear. So, it's in rule number 2605. All right, thanks. And then, what we have here doesn't change that. Right, correct. So, why don't we just read it so people know what it says in the rule. Okay, a private pre-qualified, pre-integrated education program operated in a licensed, central-based program shall employ or contract for the services of at least one teacher who holds a valid Vermont educator licensed with an endorsement in early childhood education or early childhood special education, 10 hours that the licensed teacher is present shall coincide with the hours of pre-kindergarten education paid for by tuition from districts. So, teacher has to be present for those 10 hours. That's in the center-based. Yes. And we don't know what present means. The operator of each registered or licensed family child care home approved as a pre-qualified pre-kindergarten education program shall ensure that one of the following requirements is met. One, or A, the operator holds a valid educator license with an endorsement in either early childhood education or early childhood special education. So, meaning that the owner is there present but is the licensed holder. B, or the operator employs or contracts with the services of a teacher who holds a valid Vermont educator license in early childhood special and for at least 10 hours per week for 35 weeks annually. Well, apparently there are a lot of those. 10 hours that the licensed teacher is present shall coincide with the hours of pre-kindergarten education paid for by tuition from districts. Or, C, the program receives regular, hands-on, active training and supervision from a teacher who is licensed. I'm not gonna say P in one, it's all the same. At least three hours per week during the 35 weeks that it's paid for through the district. So, you can be present for 10 hours or in the homes, three hours active coaching, training. Okay. Chris. Do I take that help? That helps, okay. So, there we go. That doesn't change anything. All right, that's all. Yeah, that's all. Where'd you go and look at? Yeah. There's so many rules to rule. How are we doing, everybody? I'm good, but what are we doing? I was gonna wait till we got the completely redone one. I wanted to make sure we had a little bit of a chance for the advocates to have a chance to speak. That would be great. I want to remind everybody that this bill is going to another committee, okay? And there are things that, I mean, there are certain things on the report back that they might have some great ideas to add to that. I don't know. In terms of the oversight, they'll probably, there's an opportunity they might, they have opportunity they are to make changes. So, I'm realizing that we don't have a perfect bill. We have some questions that are still there. It will go through two more committees. And we're pretty much out of time and I really want to get this to them. So, if it was possible to get it, why don't we take a struggle, struggle on what we have right now? Supporting the bill. Yeah, send it over. Okay. Okay. Is voted out the wrong way? Send it out the wrong way. Yeah, yeah. Is it safe to assume that the other two committees were here the same testimony we heard from the bees this morning? It's safe to assume that people will be up if not for maybe wanting to testify. We will also send one or two of us up to present the bill to them. In terms of being able to get back with those changes, I don't know Jim's schedule for today. I know that I have another committee I have to be in in a little bit and then I could make changes after that, but we've been kind of working collaboratively and going back and forth. So, I'm not sure, is it okay? I appreciate that, really. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Yeah, from here. So, is he on the side? Yeah, so he's pretty much the rest of the afternoon because they are on the agenda. Oh my Lord, proficiency. Morning. Oh my God. Instruct, they're doing instruction. Literary literacy. They're not, that's a straw. Oh, that's right. That's right. And it's the waiting study. Okay, I know, it's miscellaneous. It's a miscellaneous that has waiting on it, I think. And health. So, so it looks like tomorrow morning then we will have the final copy and we will take a vote. So Rita, are you here tomorrow? Yeah. Okay, so. Everybody here tomorrow? Yep, yep. Thank you very much. Did you want to speak to the bill? At 315, three people who are out meeting with the Secretary of Education will have an opportunity to be very brief. When will they be? They can be here for 315. 315. And what about you? Do you want to speak to the bill? Sure, I have that language that you have. Okay. Sure. Okay. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Just related to our conversation earlier, sorry, Sarah Kenney from Let's Grow Kids about the vision and capacity report. The language that I have thrown together very quickly for your consideration is just saying that the report shall build on the report and recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Financing High Quality Affordable Child Care. And you might want to also include the report of the Building Vermont's Future from the Child Up think tank, which grew out of the Blue Ribbon Commission and include representation from the agencies at both of those tables. So just not losing track of all the work that has previously been done on this visioning question. And then I would also recommend that somewhere in the guiding language for that report that you don't require them to work in consultation with stakeholders sometimes. So it's not just the agencies in the room coming up with the vision, but they're talking to other folks. It might actually be something that will lead to the other committee. And then I just have one technical question that might actually be a question I'm not sure. On page 24 in the study about the licensed teachers, the report on availability of qualified kindergarten teachers, there is reference. Sorry. What was that? Page 24. It's on page 24, line one. There's a reference to A29C1A as amended by this act, but I think that's a reference to when you were changing the requirement for licensed teachers in classrooms. So I just wanted to double check if that reference is actually, if there's still a change in the bill to that section, or if it means further clarification that you're talking about. That vision of requiring direct instruction in the future. I'll take one, yeah. And it's referenced again on line nine and 13. And set it. Look it up in two minutes. It's referencing as amended by this act. So, I don't think that this act is any longer amending that definition, but I don't, just a question. That's a good question. Yeah. Thank you. I'll try to say it like that. So, it's possible that we'll leave that language to the other committee to do what they want to do. Really, I think in thinking about that, it was just thinking as we're working on policy for pre-K and childcare, what's the interaction between all of those? And are we looking at what's happening around the state and reading what's happening around the state? There are so many different interpretations about it. Yeah. Yeah. And there's definitely a movement in the field from birth to five, or having increased credentials and having folks who are well-qualified and professionally prepared and teaching young children from birth to five until they get into the public school system or until they're in kindergarten. And they're going to move toward that. So, commissions that are assigned to the governor that are related to birth degree three. That's another question about how broadly those should be looked at. I also don't think I mentioned earlier that we totally support the new pre-K coordinator grants. And we talked a little bit about making sure that that's clear that it's incentivizing new regional coordinators as opposed to funding the ones that are already there, which might be nice, too. But if the goal is to have them statewide. No, of course. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do you see that? I was listening to all of that. Tomorrow morning, we're going to have another one. Really? Thank you. Good morning. Well, what's the end of the day? Maybe the morning. We'll see you in the morning. But maybe we're open at too soon. It's a night day. I don't know if I'm about to break, but we need to get back here at 3.15, right? Who? Who is who? That's right. The governor's son. He's 30. He's 30. You're not allowing someone else else? Yeah. Let me show you. Let me, this is kind of cool. There's a student coming in to see the governor tomorrow. Oh, yeah. Let me see how he gets this. Do you ever get those dancers? Yes, those dancers, yes. They are coming. Senors. Senors, yes. And they're going to speak to us, too. We're going to get a special opportunity for them to speak to our committee. But this young man who's coming in to see the governor, can you switch with us? You see it? Yeah. International dyslexia. So I've invited him to come speak to us, as well. Cool. There's nobody. That's good. Read the subtitles, though. Oh, yes. Thank you. You're speaking. Sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. A lot of presenters are speaking. Yes. There you go. Just pass it. You might need to plug that. Yeah. Oh, am I going to plug this guy in? Yeah. Yeah. Three cups, then let's do it. All right. So I've invited this little girl up there to talk to us. All right. So I've invited her to the International Dyslexia Association. So that's about 15 to 20 percent of grade school students have dyslexia. They say the core difficulty with dyslexia is with quarterback admission, reading, fluency, spelling, and writing. Channel 3's Connor Cyrus' live-stream studio to explain even with all those barriers one very boy is proving inherently impossible. Aaron Carter of Soma Iini is a fourth grader. And with the help of his mother wrote a book, The Boy in the Bad. The book is about a boy named Bill with dyslexia. He's nervous to read in front of his classmates so he runs away through a series of adventures with her new friend at the back. And it's sort of that reminds him to never give up. He's able to overcome his fear, proving that anything is possible. Mom Rebecca Summarini says that this is very important to know. Dispuxita is extremely common and there is help out there in the community. There are many people, many programs there to help your kid learn how to read. And the book is just to let families know that they're not alone. She and her son Carter have been working for over a year and a half to get this book perfect and published. Coming up at 5.30 here from Carter and like he thinks this book is so important for everyone to read. Alexander? It's a sale so extraordinary and it only happens when you're here. That's genius. No. It's a sale at the total focus center. Okay. So anyway, I've invited him to come in at night. All right. That's great. We need another bunch of kids in this room in a good way. It always seems to make us fire. Can we ask him what his recommendations are on our literacy bill? We can certainly ask him what's held. Can I share that I went to the prison in Northern State yesterday and spoke with eight gentlemen sitting in a big circle with a teacher. Scary, they had my bio with my picture all out there. So I'm going, oh boy. I couldn't have snuck out because they wouldn't know who I was by that time. Anyhow, they all sat around and they had some very wonderful questions. They're all going to vote. They've all contacted their town clerks. They're planning on voting. Two of them will be the first time that they will be voting. One young man has been in and out of a couple of child homes and he's only just 21. So he's been in Woodside twice and back and forth and I didn't share or they didn't share what they were there for. But I asked a question. I said, I hope I don't embarrass anybody but would you gentlemen tell me can all of you read and comprehend and spell? And they said yes. And I said, does anybody have a struggle with dyslexia? And I had two that raised their hands. And that it was very hard for them trying to get through school without having to have a fight because they were different than the rest of the kids. And when I told them that the 63% and the reading and that, they couldn't believe it. And I just said, well, we have to do something about it. That's always to it. After all these 200 years of learning how to read and we still don't have it. But anyhow, it was a delight. The scary thing is, is that as they were leaving, they all shook my hand and they walked out and they told their teacher there were two of them that said, I'd like to run for office. I said, do your time. I said, we did have a gentleman here who had done their time, went back to school. And I said, he's done very well. And I said, you can too. You can do whatever. But the teacher was so excited that they actually were listening and were really, really interested in what was going on. Of course they wanted to know how much did you get paid and why did I choose to go into government politics? And I must like it because I've been here 10 years. And I just- They didn't say that. You said that. No, they said, you've been doing this. Yeah. Well, it said on my bio that this is however many years and it's 10. And so they were very excited and they're going to continue this class. So on the next class, they're going to ask me to come back again. And we'll do that. And I stole your origami little people. One of the gentlemen has a lot of problems with being able to be centered, he's nervous. And I saw him sitting there and he says, ma'am, he said, I'm not ignoring you. I can't sit here and do nothing. So he made me a family of cranes and they're the littlest, tedious things I have ever seen. And he said, it's just something I do. And he says, everybody in the prison, I think, has one. If they haven't stomped on them or strung them off things. He was joking. But it was a lot of fun. It was really a lot of fun. And if you have the opportunity, go. Share your abilities. Go to pick a prison that's near you and go in and ask. They all have community high school or Vermont and or they should. And just say you'd like to talk to them about literacy or whatever we're talking about. So. That's great. Thank you. We'd already have a redraft of literacy, trying to balance a few things, it's challenging. And then the second noon, I think, Lynn and Dylan, you're gonna go next door. Yes. To follow the full construction. There's a little interesting thing. I saw Rebecca Ellis, who used to be a legislator and she now works for the office. So guess what I always talk about when I see her. The school construction. So I thought she told me last week that there was some steam that was being picked up on that. So I told her some of the things you were doing. And she asked if we had any update on what kind of projects were happening in the state. So I gave her everything that I gave. I checked back with the bond bank and sent that information about our bonding and then our bonding that's going now at the local level. So she said, this is fantastic. So I'm like, oh God, maybe people use this. Maybe they can help move. And they're voting that healthcare bill out now. So I'm gonna go up and follow that. Oh, okay. Oh, yeah. You mean, you have to tell us about that bill. Really, I think that was just some interesting testimony. Yeah, I hope so. But I'll be back to speak to you. Yeah, we're being led off until then. And I really appreciate your ability to keep it designed to the sections of the bill to make it a little easier for us to, we don't have our attorney in the room at the moment. We don't have either of our attorneys in the room. So it's very helpful if you can organize things to identify the sections of the bill that you're talking about. That's, yeah. Hi, everyone. Jeff Francis, Executive Director of the Superintendent's Association. We've been working with, as a collaborative school board, superintendents, principals and council, special ed administrators. And we've been trying to stay with you in your work as you looked at drafts 3, 1, 6, 2, and 8, 4. And we came in this morning with testimony on 6, 2. You were listening to a walkthrough of 8.4. We were asked to testify or asked to testify because we know that you're preparing for a vote. So we went back to our offices at Two Prospects Creek and looked at draft 8.4 and have an interest in commenting on the bill. Now the chair has asked that we be very specific with respect to the sections, but we did not organize our testimony that way. We organized the testimony thematically around the things that we were interested in, that we stated as priorities and are gonna comment that way. I've asked Sandra Cameron, who's with us, to try to honor the request of the chair. When I talk about provisions within the bill, she's gonna tell you the section that they're in. Okay. They're talking about the provisions that they'll be able to take a moment so we can find that section. Right, and what we'll do, and I realize that you're on a tight timeline, is if we're not successful in that approach, we'll come back to you with the section's reference. Okay? Okay, good. That was good. Two general comments, three general comments. One, we're very appreciative of the fact that the committee is turning into this issue. As you've heard from us, ad nauseum, this is a bill that we've been interested in since its passage in 2014. The folks who we work with in the field have been challenged by the implementation construct of the law. We think that changes to the law are necessary and we appreciate the fact that you're tackling those changes. The second thing that I'll say is that I know that Kate Webb joined some of you in terms of visits to public and private providers of pre-K through the fall and early winter. And I know because of the people with whom she visited that she learned a lot about the variety, variability and multitude of local partnerships that have arisen. So the interest that we have in this bill does not speak to what's not happening at the local level because we think by and large the folks at the local level are working well together. And that's something that I think you've thematically heard in this committee. And then the third thing that I would be remiss if I didn't bring up because it does speak to some of the testimony that I'm gonna provide is that we were surprised at the testimony that was offered by the agency human services and the agency of education last week, particularly after they had issued the 27 report for improvements to the pre-K delivery system which called for greater equity of access for kids. It talked about the challenges associated with dual oversight and it raised the issue of the credentials for the teachers who are in contact with kids in the settings whether they're home-based, center-based or school-based. So the testimony that I'm gonna offer is thematically on those points and I won't come of any surprise to you that we're gonna offer the testimony that we are. So in the bill there is a study about the implications associated with higher teacher credentials and it really speaks to a couple categories of interest. Yep. Can you take us to that part, Sandra? So it's page 25, it starts on line 16. Right. Okay, so there are two things here. So you're on the section seven study the vision and capacity part? No, I think the study that we're speaking about is the study that is the report on availability of qualified pre-kindergarten teachers. That's section six on page 21. So there's a lot of data that's collected here and I think it's data that's intended to substantiate what we already know which is a shortage of qualified pre-k teachers and that if you evolve into a system where there are increased obligations for center-based and home-based providers to provide access to these educators in these settings that that's gonna be challenging. So I thought is that rather than reiterate the problem and substantiate what we think you're going to learn is that the focus be on addressing that issue rather than proving it. I'm not sure exactly what the language would say but we think that AOE and AHS in their capacity as the leads on this act 166 which they will continue to be that the focus of that section ought to be more on how not why you can't or the implications of that but how to do it. And I'm not sure what the language would say we didn't have to get to that yet but I would say that I would ask you for that language to get to us before the end of the day. Suggested language, right? Because I'm not sure I agree with the premise. Okay, so create capacity, is that what you're asking? I mean my, what I think the testimony said on the issue was that research shows that working with a licensed educator is preferable in terms of outcomes and I would add parenthetically literacy. We know that these are education fund dollars and we know that there's a belief which I have no reason to dispute that to evolve to more stringent requirements even over a five year timeline would be perceived as burdensome both from a financial standpoint and from a standpoint of are there enough educators available. So I mean that could be studied but you could also say we accept those things as true what are we gonna do about it in terms of getting access to educators in these programs. This study's got- I don't think we need a baseline then. Maybe you need a baseline but it seems to me like you could turn this study as much into how you address the problem you anticipate as identifying the problem in its scope. So we can try to get your language on that. I think I'm hearing that the committee believes that we need a baseline. Okay. Is that correct? Yeah. I don't. Okay. One of the things you want is to put the focus on how to reach the goal of essentially to really be specific how to reach the goal of 10 hours of direct instruction from a licensed teacher in a private setting. Yeah and I think if we were gonna and again we didn't have a lot of time with this draft so we're going thematically to the points we made I think that because AOE and AHS are confident that everything's gonna get worked out by them that they ought to be the ones who do it. I would just say only I do feel that we need to retain the baseline info but if you guys are feeling that this doesn't correctly address the solutions you know right after section five is the place to beef that up. Sure. And again I want to stress this and it's not a tremendously uncomfortable person situation for me because I've been in the witness chair before. These are not fine. This is not fine point testimony. This is our response to 8.4 based on the time we had which was basically from the time you concluded this morning till we all went to a meeting at the AOE at one o'clock so we're doing the best we can. The second thing that I want to say is we're appreciative of the bifurcation of responsibility for AHS and AOE with regard to oversight. That oversight is still inextricably intertwined. So what section are we going to now? It just did help me when I'm talking to your attorney. Sure. I'm going to go to point three next. So Santa says it's scattered throughout the bell. So let me just be real clear thematically about what it is we're interested in. Because AOE and AHS will continue to have to work together in a wide array of issues associated with the implementation of the act we would like to see the AOE and AHS have some kind of an ongoing feedback loop so that they are in contact with the field with regard to the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of this act. So right now we're functioning as intermediaries at the association level. We come here and we say special educators, early childhood coordinators, principals, superintendent school members think that the implementation of the law under the dual agency oversight construct is not working well. The testimony from AOE and AHS was that they had a new monitoring system, they've rewritten the rules and they have new pads forward in terms of how they're going to work well together. Let's take that on face value but let's in addition to the changes that you're making here in terms of the partial bifurcation the realignment as it were that AOE and AHS go right to the field public providers, private providers and they create a feedback loop and that's not funneling it through building bright futures not funneling it through let's grow kids not funneling it through the Vermont Superintendents Association let's ask the AOE and AHS to create a feedback loop and then present to you the evidence that the improvements that they've made are in fact in place. That's the second. I think, yes. Well, I think it would be relatively simple language that says as part of the implementation of the act AOE and AHS will develop a feedback mechanism so that public schools and private providers you can include parents if you wanted to have a way to convey their their experiences associated with the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of the act. And that wouldn't have happened in the monitoring? I think that the monitoring system is intended to cite look at program deficiencies I don't think it's got anything to do with the satisfaction of either I could be wrong about it but I think it's got anything to do with the satisfaction of the public schools or the private providers in terms of what their experience is trying to navigate the system. Sister are you envisioning like a I'd ask them first of all I'd ask them if they think the concept has merit and if it does it's something they could do but there's every kind of survey form available right now and here's the thing we were of the belief that the best way to move forward with this bill was to give the agency of education oversight for the public schools and the agency of education oversight for the education portion of the private delivery system and you've made some headway with respect to that but it's still got even in the construct of this bill there's an integration understandably I think because when Act 1.66 passed everybody was of the belief that this dual system was going to work well and now here we are at various intervals saying that it's not Parts of it have worked well for what we understand but not all of it has been kind of late certainly but I mean you had two secretaries in 2017 say that it ought to be separated and we've got and we had late testimony from AHS and AOE last week coming in saying we you know keep everything basically the way it is so what we're saying is that I mean that's fine we've got good working relationships with those entities and organizations you're making progress with regard to this bill in terms of the construct of the bill I think it's true that there are still going to be experiences for public schools and private providers presumably with both agencies and in a modern era it ought to be reasonable for the AOE to get feedback and AHS feedback on what the experiences are the people who they're providing services to okay the third issue was equity and access for children with disabilities and so this bill remains that issue as a word of the Census based advisory group we had a lot of conversation in the short time we had this morning to talk about the wisdom of that I think that equity and access for children with disabilities is a core principle of an equitable education delivery system we've known since the passage of 166 that that was a problem principally with regard to equity and access to services for children with disabilities who may for reasons that are legitimate useful and make sense to the families of those children they want to have portability and portability is a big aspect of this bill so we think that there is a fundamental issue around how to provide services to those children and give them the same opportunity that any other children would have the Census based advisory group has a chance full with regard to the implementation of 173 it's got a chance full with regard to supporting implementation with the agency of education and I've got a feeling that it's going to have its hands full even more so when you delve deeply into the weighting study so we don't believe that the right entity to examine this issue of equity and access for children with disabilities would be the Census based advisory group we can imagine a construct where would you again have representatives of AOE and AHS convene appropriate stakeholders I'd go so far as to say they could determine the appropriate stakeholders and then work on this issue I had a conversation with the chair before we came in here that it is a tough issue because it's an issue that basically bends the construct of the current way that we provide services to kids with disabilities in a construct that has been stretched downward into a partnership or collaborative between private providers and public schools in a construct that provides for portability so it is a thorny issue and it's one that is going to require I think access to resources in ways that the Census based advisory committee is not well situated to do it so we think it ought to be done because we think it is a core interest with regard to this issue but we think it ought to be the responsibility of other entities and I would suggest to you that AOE and AHS could be charged with that the fourth one is one that is not touched on in the legislation at all but when we talked at in our meeting earlier today we were examining draft 8.4 for a response to our core principles and we realized that we had left a core principle out and this I think is through the iterative process of trying to track the various drafts and that is it goes to the question of how do you get increased contact time beyond ten hours for children most in need those who live in poverty those at risk of developmental delay and that that aspect of this bill has been with us since the passage of the bill Ned Kirsch who as you know fortunately passed away last year unfortunately in 2016 he was examining the delivery of 166 in his Franklin West supervisory union and he said these things are going okay we need a new work in these areas but the thing I'm really concerned about are the children who don't have access even to the ten hours because of their circumstances and for those who do have ten hours but need more how do we get it for them so I think it would be reasonable for you to say Jeff that's not in this bill currently we're not going to put it in the bill but when we talked we raised the question if Act 166 is intended to improve access to public education and outcomes in public education starting with Pre-K in a system that's funded by the education fund can we do more to get access to kids who need more than ten hours so maybe that we should take with the committee upstairs maybe if this bill progresses we ought to bring it up otherwise but we talked about it today and I thought I'd bring it up with you and then the fifth one and again this is sort of ancillary to everything that I've commented on so far but thematically it's totally on point with what this committee has spent a large amount of time on in this session already and that is how do we make sure that Act 166 universal access to Pre-K is aligned with your short and long term literacy development initiatives so you've got 166 right here and you've got literacy legislation right here and you've got 173 right here when you think about Pre-K as being the foundation to a child's education overall and that you know in conjunction with what you do with children birth to three then it does make sense that as we examine Act 166 and its implementation that we ought to be thinking about how Act 166 and its implementation conforms to your interest in literacy which takes you right back to the first point which is contact time with the most well qualified educators so that there you could say miss that too we get your point if you do get my point and thanks for bringing that to our attention now going back to Act 4 specifically the the provision which is the streamlining provision for the expansion of public programs when deemed necessary by local school district officials Sandra is going to find that for us right now Sandra well as we look for that so our testimony is that we should dispense with notice on agenda because the implication there is that it's quite similar albeit without the repeated hearings that are currently in Act 166 we think that it would be better if the public providers and the private providers just had the same 60-day notice requirement communities in Vermont are relying heavily in some regions on public providers because there's not enough private providers and it would be sufficient in our belief that we simply say to all providers we believe you're going to act responsibly you're only going to add capacity when you need to add capacity to the determinations once that determination has been made it's sufficient to notify your partners with 60 days advance notice the notion of you know once you post it on an agenda you need to notify all your partners within the region presumably so that they can come in and talk about it at a school ward meeting well one calendar day so the notice requirement for regular meetings in Vermont is only 48 hours so basically you're worn a meeting on Wednesday plenty of schools do it ahead of time the meetings on Friday and on Thursday your program partners get a notice guess what we're going to be talking about this tomorrow night we think it's better and goes more to the equity of implementation of this law and equity in terms of how we consider the public providers and the private providers that it just be 60 days for everybody finally and this is the last point and I may ask Tracy to speak to this so then you might as well say if you should notify someone by July 1st or something why is that because they aren't going to be starting until September 9th, oops J. Nichols for the record BPA that's not necessarily true you could, yeah depending on you know any flux of students or something like that so 60 days is what we propose there and then finally although we address the the issue of ensure equity and access for children with disabilities in my testimony above Tracy Sawyer's was quite interested in making sure that there was a study through the early childhood special education task force around I think all forms of funding support for pre-K for children with disabilities and if Tracy is willing and you'll grant permission Chair Webb I'd like to turn to Tracy so she can talk about that. Thank you for the record Tracy Sawyer's Vermont Council Special Ed Administrators I can re-give you, Sandra and I testified on some more specific language here just Valentine's Day I think a few weeks ago so I could give that to you but I think the issue of looking at access and funding because that's going to be and there are some opportunities in where we are around the funding piece Are you talking about kids on IEPs or not on IEPs? Yes, I'm talking about children with disabilities that need services, IEP services outside of district, yeah and that it's about access on how to do that but also the funding, it's looking at the AAA grants, it's looking at the Census based funding block grant possibly pre-K through 12 looking at the current reimbursement model so I think there's pieces that need to look at in conjunction with the access piece and I can hand this to you this language again and share that with you And then finally what I'd like to say is we realize that this is a fluid process and we appreciate the fact that you have allowed us to come in and testify on draft 8.4 we recognize that when you consider the testimony that we gave today some of the points we raised you may be able to do something about some of the points you might not, some things you may agree with, some things you may not the test that we applied when we prepared to come in and talk to you was whether or not we were being true to the issues that have been brought to our attention for the last five years by the people who we work with and I am very appreciative and I think I speak for my colleagues when they say that you brought this discussion to this point draft 8.4 and I also feel that we would not be doing our jobs and would be remiss if I didn't come in and speak about these issues just the way I have today so given the legislative process and I'm already way behind and yet in this bill upstairs this bill will go upstairs it may go with means it gets out of this building this chamber it goes to the senate and as we say sometimes these are things you just take to the other body that always hasn't worked very well for me but I understand that that's how the process works I'm looking at the things that you would like I think some of them are pretty easy I think for example not using the census based advisory group moving that to AOEAHS that seems to make sense probably there is no it doesn't make sense oh no it makes sense I agree with you for part of it I think they are the ones who need to study and come up with recommendations for how we deal with portability it still seems to me that the census based advisory group is perhaps the best place to be looking at the funding mechanism as we move to the census based model whether it is already a category for pre-K special aid which we are hearing is not not great you don't have a problem with that remaining like I said we did our best with regard to the comments that I made I understand you are going to work on it and I realize that time is limited anything that you can do to give consideration to the points that we raised would appreciate in terms of the report back you are okay with gathering a baseline but you are suggesting that perhaps there needs to be more on what we are going to do about it for me we would say a plan to respond to the within a time period I think that would be good in terms of oversight you are talking about some kind of ongoing feedback mechanism beyond monitoring I think that people do surveys all the time they know who the license providers are they could just say what your experience been with administration of this program by AHS and AOE one of the challenges that I have observed over the last five years has been a communication challenge and I think that that is an evidence in spades and I think that if AOE and AHS are at the dawn of a new day in terms of how they work together to implement this program efficiently and effectively and I am paraphrasing now but that is the testimony you heard that I think that is great let's go with that but let's have a feedback loop I am not sure how to do that there is nothing here that prevents them from doing a feedback loop nor prevents anybody from acting do they need legislation to do that well I mean this is the I didn't go back and check the calendar but I think I have testified on this belt every year since 2016 and we are here raising the same issues I think one of my problems again access we are not serving our kids we are serving some particularly with disabilities I don't know how we there is a lot of issues there there is transportation issues there is poverty there is so many things in there fear with this how we fix that I really don't know how we fix it 10 hours you have to be there you have to get there 10 hours doesn't work for working people 10 hours is everything we are really just trying to you are sort of work better you want to vote tomorrow I am sorry that I can see I can feel in my face that I am showing some frustration well that is fantastic it is not fantastic no I don't mean to be disrespectful this I think is our fourth time testifying on this we are on draft 8.3 and A O E N A just came in when so here is a deal the goal has always been to stabilize this program all it is trying to do is stabilize it for now and there needs to be a plan looking for the future just stabilize stabilize what we can is this a done deal is this a 10 year plan no it is not free the public schools from dual oversight designed to allow public schools to be able to expand if they wanted to designed to bring forward what we learned from the field that pre-take coordinators are really valuable and it is working and we need to figure out how to scale that up and always to maintain that a mixed delivery model is what we have now and we can't do it without a mixed delivery model and being adversarial between the public and private is getting us nowhere and so I just wanted we need to get to the point where we have got teachers with a kind of qualification that we can understand means something and at the moment we don't have something that we can say means something unless they have a certified teacher there and it's not to say that in those private programs they're not doing some wonderful things it's just that we don't have evidence that there is without having a teacher a person that has credentials so our goal is to stabilize we're hoping that out of this we'll be able to start looking at there are states around the country that are coming up with some amazing ideas and we're stuck going like this and I'd like us to get out of being stuck there because this is going to go upstairs and it's going to be this again at the same time everybody I know wants to do well by 3, 4 and 5 year olds now and pay in for 3, 4 and 5 year olds in the future which is why we have a visionary piece in there as well I think some of these that we can fix so they're not too big we'll talk about whether 60 days works or not we'll talk about we'll get the language from Tracy about the Early Child and Special Educator Task Force and I'm going during them now that I should say fantastic though what's the effect of data what's the effect of data immediately I'm sorry I have an unfortunate tumor side that I hit I was typing all the time why not for me for me some of you don't know and then I'll just I'll come back can I ask a yes you may so I wanted to make a statement about one thing one is that when I was an early age teacher what I heard with children that were struggling with a double dose like where they went to the same kindergarten program in the same day and did the repetition had better outcomes than longer hours so that's just one thing to think about how to structure that so you've brought the issue of literacy and special ed and pre-K and I this is why I'm concerned and I extract this morning that the AOE was not monitoring the delivery of educational program in a private school and what I hear is that the valves, the the moderately learning standards are supposed to be being implemented with the public and private and when I read the valves there's a whole section on literacy you know for four and five year olds and that's why I'm feeling I want some assurance that that is being done I know it's probably being done in the public I don't know it's being done in the private so that's it is it is well what do you need for what's going to convince you that it's happening probably for the AOE to go in and look at the curriculum and the standards and meet with teachers or you know get some what's going to we can tell you that the valves are in place and are being monitored right now right in the private it's not like I don't believe it I don't know do we have a report of outcomes from the private so we know that progress monitoring is done we don't know what curriculum looks like across all the studies we don't have a way to measure that we don't have on-site monitoring of what it actually looks like but they do the biggest goal is a measure that actually it sort of sets how they're doing on the valves in a sense it sort of doesn't it measures child progress and that data goes to the AOE yes and we don't have we have not seen that data we've not seen it in our lives so maybe if that happened that would be really helpful to see the data as you know we've had incredible data problems with the AOE I don't know the AOE is in the it probably would help me so anyway I was just thinking that that link seems like it's already we have the literacy and the pre-check and it just would be good to see some data on how kids are doing in the yeah in the private to handle the public it's Emily Simmons agency education I know we keep them up talking about the monitoring system and saying it's not fully rolled out yet it will be fully rolled out at the end of March it's color coded and I'm observing that everything in yellow is the monitoring of valves it's the third bucket of things that we monitor in the monitoring system I did send it to you yesterday oh yes you did so do we have the data and I know you're monitoring do we have the outcomes that would be the TS goal would be the measurement of the outcomes and we have that for privates that's all I want to know thank you thank you thank you I do apologize I think I owe you with the apology because I said if I keep talking about this it will end up in what's that called Lola I've been in it once already it didn't end well for me so thank you thank you thank you hey when stuff comes to the legislature it's not easy we know you're doing your best we're doing our best we believe AHS and AOE are doing their best well so we're saving seven dollars for every one dollar we're investing in a free bed as we were promised and the price continues to go down we're decompensating and so conversation team let's go again did you have anything more I just always like the opportunity to say on the record that I agree with almost everything Jeff Francis just said put that in at what's it called finally other than the bifurcations I actually great comment on the 60 days that's what I want to look into a little more I feel like that might just be an ongoing topic as the bill continues moving because I just don't have a sense for how it actually plays out on the ground okay if you folks could help I'm happy to go work with you and see if we can get this with the lawyers any other comments any other comments from the team I think so I'm sorry I was getting distracted by the buddy's chair did you just ask for more comments from us did you have something to say that was constructive I want to know what our return on the best one is we'll take a few more alright on the business in a bit so where we are at the moment then any thoughts on what Jeff had to say in terms of if I could have that paper that would be really helpful did Jeff just take it away yes the one that had your bullets on it yes okay I'll get these to you right okay I'm just going to speak to it right now do you have a copy of this I would just say any reference to the testimony because it's a very important text that we brought up but they're really big like is 10 hours efficient for our kids who are most in need and don't think that this deal is going to solve that without just sort of saying we're not addressing that this time that is a big issue this has always been a tweak and the alignment with literacy I think trying to make that happen in the two pieces of legislation now I think wouldn't derail any progress I think it's happening I don't I think it is happening okay so we're going to look at moving central space funding advisory group we're going to talk with you about that language sounds good I was glad to hear that okay report back we'll make sure we have the baseline language that we're talking about but also some recommendations that's in there or not it's in the findings before the study that the goal is to have direct destruction so we look at that some of this is just moving on and we can earmark those who are committed to take a look at because I can't call this bill here any longer no it says taking into account the General Assembly's goal to have pre-kindergarten education be delivered through the inflation of high quality effective direct instruction by quality educators that would be looked at the 50 day thing so I'll speak to that I think that the idea of the sort of one day or two days agenda is providing clearly defined concrete ways to trigger say we need to start having a conversation obviously it appears on an agenda item that's way 60 days before expansion is going to take place to me the whole goal here was to say the two sides need to start talking I would hope it would be as they're noodling the idea schools would say well let's talk about and make sure we're not killing the private programs around this by doing this 60 days is not enough well it just seemed like it was easier to say hey we're talking about it here's the link to the which forum notice is what seemed easier to me but I'll hear from the school board okay so I will go to these folks and lawyers and see if they can address some of those concerns Casey do you have a thought I'm just looking forward we'll get this out tomorrow we're going to get this out tomorrow it's not perfect can we vote out anything else tomorrow tomorrow we have a couple things going on 8 30 I could be in here to do pre-k markup this is going to be the vote tomorrow morning 8 30 can you be here mine's going to be kind of a problem you got storm coming 8 45 thank you Casey for saying that I have strapped in community coming in new agenda yeah 8 30 8 30 is a hardship for whom everybody if there's traffic through an urban area urban area I got a much longer these two guys and I'm not raising my hands I guess it's going to be a hardship I don't have to just drop off they sleep in I don't know we'll move that we'll see we'll start at 9 with a boy to bat which is probably what we need and then we'll just jump right in after that but then we're going to give us a half an hour which isn't enough well this is all of our own time that's literacy we've got to do literacy and then we've got of course it'd be okay maybe it will be okay maybe we can enjoy the bat when we'll be 15 minutes so 915 so I am around hoping you're listening so 915 we'll do pre-k 915 we'll do pre-k and then we'll follow it up with literacy literacy and then we will we're going to be hearing from Lynn and Dylan our next door listening to what they're doing with our school construction they have been working on the survey of schools and the language for that so they're going to be presenting that language to us and we'll hear from John Carroll on that state board of education then we'll go and have a lot of fun so we're definitely doing the end of this tomorrow yeah I think we are I think that's right I think there's no way we'll be there a long time just I'm just thinking out loud here what harm would it do to assume that there weren't enough teachers in terms of going in that direction of looking for a solution what harm why do we need that data what harm would it do in finding a solution looking for a solution not a solution but do we really need that not for I mean what if we just assumed there aren't enough teachers what harm would it do to you know think of a way to build capacity this the person who always wants data I know it's amazing but I'm thinking what harm I mean what difference does it make I mean if we just went and kind of looked at how to build capacity if there's enough people there's enough people there's not enough people who are like a little ahead of the game I think about it you don't have to answer me but I'm just wondering about that like what harm would it do to do that you're right I'm just looking where we were at one point where we set a goal an aspirational goal to have life with teachers in the school we had a rather large upset about that so we said okay this is going to work program let's go back and see what that means so then we said let's get the data where we are now and see what the distance is to get there and that's how we ended up with this and then people wanted us to take away the aspirational goal five years from now it will be which for me it felt a little bit like a death but gave that one up and said we'll just do this we'll report that okay I just I think we're done