 Hello and welcome. This is the House Education Committee in the Vermont House of Representatives, and it's Friday, April 17. And today we're going to be talking about a covert response in relation to pre K education and continuity of learning. And while normally I would start with the secretary what I wanted to do instead was just get an idea from the ground so we would have a context to put some of the things into. My bag baker. To speak to us. Thank you. So I wanted to testify just to the pre K education and continuity of learning guidance that was issued on the 13th. But just to give you a little context, I am the universal pre K coordinator for Addison County, the three districts here are Addison Central Addison Northwest and the Mount Abe USD program districts, and we have about 35 pre K private pre K districts serving about 350 children between those three districts. We have some pretty significant concerns about the guidance that has just come out indicating that districts are to provide the continuity of learning to all of those children whether they were enrolled in a school building, or in the pre qualified private program. We, we feel as though the programs themselves the private programs are best placed to offer those ongoing relationships with the children and their families to support children and to monitor ongoing educational contracts and most of our private partners are doing that. They are offering the ongoing connections they're providing circle times and read aloud and child development information and learning activities. And through our contracts they have full responsibility for general education of those students. We've been providing supports, but to be perfectly frank, we do not have a capacity within our district to provide supports direct instruction to 350 additional children. My position is a halftime one and I personally can't do it and we have limited capacity within for teaching pre K students within each of our three districts. The question mark I have is we've been directed in that guidance to provide funding and ongoing funding to programs which we have already made our final payments through the end of the school year, and I do not want to remove those. However, the guidance that was recently issued indicated we should on and we should provide those payments, even if the children were unenrolled from the program. And this was in response to the way that the stabilization funds from the CDD are being run is in order for a program to get 100% of tuition they have to unenroll the child. Entirely, but we can't provide pre K education fund money. If there's not an actual child attached to that money I don't think I think there's some some concerns there. It would be a simple enough matter I think to unenroll them for all of the childcare hours and not unenroll them for the pre K hours right so the parents are only paying for that. For the childcare hours there's no cost associated for the family with the pre K hours, because the district pays for those entirely. So if we could unenroll them 100% from childcare and not from those 10 hours they could receive their continuity of learning. And I think that that problem would would dissipate. The continuity of learning would be provided by the private providers. That's right and we provide supports and special education ongoing special education supports. Okay, thank you. Welcome. We'll probably want to get and maybe, maybe the deputy commissioner can talk a little bit about some of the unenrolling language because that's not familiar with that one. Are there any questions from Meg at this point. We're also going to hear from just so people know, we're going to hear from Champlain Valley, and we're going to hear from Burlington as well for on the ground reports but I thought that this would help give us a start to understand the magnitude of the challenge. So Mr secretary. Good afternoon. It's good to see you all the in terms of the guidance, the guidance came out, I think, over the weekend. And, you know, just to sort of set the rationale for the guidance one is that the governor's original emergency order prescribed the continuity of learning would include pre K. So, you know, as we started to formulate how pre K would be implemented under the continuity of learning. First thing is to acknowledge is that pre K isn't included is not it wasn't that there's no opportunity really to set it aside or come up with another strategy. It needs to be included. Secondly, as mentioned, the issue of maintaining 1666 tuition payments has been a consistent requirement throughout this emergency period. And that's the rationale of economic stability. It's basically the same strategy that's been employed to require school districts to pay their employees for the rest of the year as well. Regardless, in the case of hourly employees regardless of their whether they're working or not or whether they're doing something else than their assigned function so school districts are required to pay their employees in accordance with their regular scheduled hours and teachers and so forth for the remainder of the school year once again as an economic stability strategy. So this guidance reaffirms that issue that school districts are required to pay their 166 tuition contract that amounts, regardless of whether students are enrolled in the programs are regardless of whether the provide private providers are operating. The providers have been shut down as per the governor's directive. They were, if you remember that transition when we were providing care for essential persons. The provider providers subsequently were ordered to shut down like most businesses in the state, with the exception to the extent that they're providing services to the children of essential persons. So the previous speaker I forgot her name but the issue just to clarify this issue of 5050 unenrolled enrolled is not really germane to this requirement that districts must continue to pay their 166 payments. This conversation is something CTV can testify more to about how that's a that's a separate economic stability initiative about how to help parents and support their childcare needs but districts from a district perspective. They are continued to require to pay the 160 tuition payment whether students enrolled whether even the providers even operating any services they're required to provide that payment that's been consistent throughout the entire emergency. Once again it's an economic stability strategy. You know, based on these considerations that were required to do pre K under continuity of learning, and that the economic stability mechanism needs to be maintained in place. We had to navigate how to how to ensure that I would, I would suggest that these children are some of our most vulnerable children. How do we, how do we ensure that these students are main at least maintained contact with through this period. And I would say firstly that the issue, the question is comes up often as a reaction to the guidance is how come we don't have private providers do this. Once again private providers to the large extent are no longer operating per the governor's directive. Yes, there are cases apparently like in this district where they are providing some services, but for the most part they are not operating right now so we don't have that infrastructure necessarily available to us to provide services. And I just just interrupt you there because I get confused and I hear that because everything's closed. Right. So I'm still working. So, I know they're not operating, but they're. I'm sorry. Typical zoom, you know what I'm trying to say. Yeah, yeah. I'll just wait to stop for you. Unlike school districts school districts are shut down for the purposes of in person instruction but they are still operating in this form of continuity learning. Private providers like other businesses are not open, essentially they are shut down. But my second point to that was even in cases where they are operating for the most part, particularly as we get into more of our. The, for the most part, many of these providers do not have the infrastructure to deliver continuity of learning remotely that's never what they were designed to do and it's been challenging enough for our public infrastructure to navigate that we didn't think it was appropriate to require private providers to try to do that as well. So our sort of remedy to that was to firstly back away from this idea of 166 and the 10 hours of instruction and I think that's where a lot of the tensions emerging the districts interpret the guidance to to mean that they are required to provide 10 hours of instruction to the students who they haven't previously providing services. That's not what the guidance says. This is really about trying to provide emotional and emotional focus on social and emotional support for students because we think public infrastructure is the really the only infrastructure available to do that right now. It's also precisely the time of the year where districts are starting to get involved with kindergarten screenings and so forth so we thought it would also fit nicely with those activities as they're starting to reach out to families and run those sort of activities that they also could also reach out on the basis of do you need anything here are supports and here are other other services that are available from other agencies and so forth. So, you know, that's that's sort of the context of the guidance I think it is as you know the prior individual testifying says as you know we have a very diverse delivery system in all aspects of our education system, including pre gay. So, there are places where the guidance I think needs needs further refinement in terms of implementation and I expect Burlington's needs to be totally different or Champlain valleys needs to be totally different than canyons needs. So that's, I have a question. That's where. Yeah, that's where to, you know, if if the concern from Addison Central was was just presented to us for further refinement. I would suggest that they're in a good place to their fulfilling their requirement if they think private providers are online providing those services, then they and they are essentially the contractors the district is the contractor in that regard. So the district should feel comfortable that they're meeting the requirements of the guidance. So, we could follow up with further refinement along those lines for folks, but it's very similar to how we started the emergency where we asked public school districts provide childcare and many districts could not do that well without contracting that service out for other providers. And that's where we started to provide that flexibility to in some districts they did that I'm thinking St. Johnsbury is a good example where they, they literally said we we really don't do this but we have these strong relationships in our community so could we contract out our obligation essentially to a third party and the answer was yes. So I think, you know, we're, our intention with the guidance is to navigate our sort of our complex delivery system but the central issues are we have to districts that do need to address continuity learning somehow. And then secondly that the economic stability component the act 166 payments must continue regardless of whether children are enrolled or not. I think most people understand the need for economic stability Peter common has a question. Yeah, I guess I'm a little troubled. I mean, I'm the school district that I'm from 80% of pre K is provided by private providers. And the idea that there's some that the school district somehow going to take on all of those kids for continuity of learning is is, I think, basically impossible but then you get to this concept of contracting it out, because where you're delivering a couple of issues here one is private centers are shut down. Yet, at the same time, they're also receiving economic money, especially if they're more than just a 10 hour week pre K their, their, their clients have to be paying 50% in order to maintain their slots. The government's picking up the other 50%. They're still maintaining their, their pre K payments. Yet, what I'm hearing is that they don't actually have any obligation to provide continuity of learning to the pre K students that are under their care. That's correct. And you have not, you don't have any kind of data or accounting for where the challenges are because it sounds like some districts are fine that the private providers are well prepared to take this on. I think it's early as I mentioned the guidance just came out this weekend so you know we've, we've, as we've had with all these emergency guidance issues we've had to iterate our way through this so we'll no doubt refine our approach based on the needs of the field to deliver the services but you know as we did earlier with early childcare, you know, once again it's a very diverse delivery model so it's not surprising to me that one set of guidance doesn't serve all areas of the state. Certainly would work very closely with districts to provide additional guidance and go back and even refine our guidance as necessary. I am hoping that that you will be able to do that and we do have more testimony coming today I realize that you can't stay for all of it is Kate in the room. Kate unfortunately had to go out of state on emergency in a family. But I would just encourage folks I know it's, I think it's very useful to have folks testify, necessarily to inform future legislation but they also have the opportunity to feed their feedback right back into us and that helps. I mean that's why how the guidance has worked to date I mean it's been an iterative process, but I think you know it's as you you probably know better than anyone else. The diversity of the delivery system is such that it requires us to kind of, you know, figure a path forward. But it's not necessarily going to happen sooner rather than later if they share that guidance with you and not directly with us. So are those concerns so we encourage them to do that. But the issue of the issue to what extent private providers are available to not is really I mean the status is right now they're not operating and they certainly would pre K in particular. Most of those services provided in person for sure. But I think you know we are we are our guidance to date was meant to establish that sort of baseline by which we can pivot and provide direction to everyone but I would say that to emphasize the point on economic stability. And when you've made the comment that's obvious to folks. It isn't necessarily obvious to people, and particularly as the other guidance that was coming out from CDD this was one of the points and I think the prior person spoke to this is that there was a point of confusion where CDD was was speaking once again we have this dual agency oversight of pre K is your well aware CDD was implementing a brand new program as a result of the emergency to support parents and and then we and then the section with 166 where a lot of these say the impetuous and from a regulatory standpoint is to comply with regulation as it was written previously though to a certain extent. What we're talking about in terms of pre K is not what 166 requires we're not you know specifically telling people to have parents walk around with TS gold checklist to verify the number of hours and so forth we just really want to take the pressure off. Folks to feel that they need to comply with those kinds of things that really similar to our broader continuity learning strategies to focus on what our student needs are right now which are certainly academic but particularly with this age group more appropriately social and emotional security. Any other questions for the secretary. I'm going to I would like to do now I think I'm going to get one more comment from the ground because I think it helps inform our questions that we're asking you. So I'd like to go to Nathan Lavery and Stacy Curtis so Nathan. Great. Good morning or afternoon rather I guess is at this point everyone thanks for for having us here and yeah I'm I'm the business manager at the Burlington School District. And I am also on the Vermont Association of School Business Officials executive board as the president elect. And I'm here also with Stacy Curtis who is our director of preschool education and early learning. And we wanted to take a few minutes to share some feedback as well. We were concerned when we read the new guidance from the agency of education. You heard some of it already and just to give you an example in Burlington. We are similarly concerned about the fact that we don't have excess staff that's qualified to instruct preschool students so in Burlington's case for example we have over 300 students just in Burlington in private preschool partner programs. So there's no way from kind of caseload sizes that we could take on additional 300 students and expect to provide anything resembling a continuity of education to to those students. And of course we're kind of equally concerned I know they're they're much smaller schools and school districts around the state who may law by and large have free school programs that are run entirely by the private providers in which case. They're clearly not going to be equipped staff wise to have licensed preschool teachers available to serve those students so no one would really expect this at a K 12 level so it's not clear to me why this is, you know, been put in place for for preschool students, but one of the. I guess in my in my effort to kind of make sure that I'm not alone in this I did speak with some of my colleagues for example and in the Essex Westford district and maple run and so a couple of other large larger districts and they expressed some similar concerns so in terms of the capacity alone to deliver continuity of instruction and services, it really isn't going to be there. And, but you know that's not the only thing to consider obviously, there are, there's other questions about like, even if we have the capacity how effectively could we serve students and for that I want to turn it over to Stacy Curtis you can talk a little bit more about the kind of social emotional elements of preschool instruction and how we try to serve students now and versus what we would be able to do in response to this. Nathan I just want to ask you one quick question before that you have 300 students how many pre K providers are you working with you think. That's a good question I want to say maybe 40 or so do you think that's Stacy am I close on that ballpark. Yeah, you're in the ballpark I think it's 48 right. Okay, let me just see if there are any questions for Nathan and then let's go on then to Stacy. Thanks for having me. Yeah, I'm similar to it Meg said our size is similar were really large districts and I think during this time my teachers have been focusing first on serving and getting things set up for continuous learning for the children in our eight classrooms so we do serve another 180 students already in our Burlington school district classrooms so when you add in that plus 300 we're talking over 500 students that we'd be looking at now providing continuous of learning and I think as many of you know we have been focused on this, you know, shared trauma that we're all experiencing at some level and what kids will come back looking like after not being in this long. And we do serve a really high population of needy children and families so amongst the calls that we've been making and contacting the 180 students we've had a wide variety of concerns shared with us from parents just not wanting any engagement from from the school at this point they just can't they have three other children in the district and social emotional needs that's what we're focusing on so we are documenting that, but I think most importantly when I heard this guidance that was concerning is just, we think about continuously continuous learning, and what that means in preschool that's all about relationships and connecting with families and it's really challenging and I don't know how we would expect to new families to make connections with teachers they don't know. They have had zero contact with they know as we pay the provider. So, similar to mega mega I do know that there's providers in Burlington that are providing some, you know, check ins with their families they're doing things Facebook and using, you know, classroom hangouts and things like that so I guess what I was hoping is just to get some some more clarity on what the expectation is for continuous learning for this age group. I mean we do have all of our materials shared on our website we have them shared on the Burlington school district website or early at website as well as hedge shared with partner programs that we meet with regularly I have regular meetings with those directors so I guess I get concerned about what level, especially when we think of tracking attendance and progress I know we're not doing spring checkpoints but what does that look like for those 500 students, it's certainly don't have the staff to do that. Yeah, thanks Stacy and so, you know, to kind of wrap it up I do want to touch that the point was made and the questions were raised about the payments to private partner programs. We are continuing to make those payments as said earlier that is that is the law and so, and we are frankly happy to do that we know that the private providers are the providers who have the relationships with those students we certainly want them not only to come out of this pandemic, you know, equipped to return to serving those students, but they're obviously also best position to provide whatever measure of service they can realistically provide to those students at this time. I think it's important to take a moment to respond directly to a few of the things that Secretary French said because I think they're important observations. In particular, he mentioned the fact that you know those private providers are shut down and therefore can't do that work but I guess I would remind the secretary that that shutdown was part of the guidance issued by the governor and his executive order. And we saw just today that in fact, the that guidance can change and it can be changed where it's appropriate to change it and that's already happening. So, I think in this case, given that we have demonstrated across, you know, the state examples of private providers who are able to provide meaningful relationship based continuity of learning services to their preschool students. It makes a lot of sense to take advantage of the great work that those folks do and allow them to continue to do that work rather than expecting public schools to create new relationships. By the time frankly that we would even be able to establish those relationships, the school year is going to be over so it's not going to deliver anything along the lines of what is being represented and I think at times we run the risk of over promising something at that guy you know everyone everyone wants to do do well and we have these ambitious desires to provide a level of service but realistically saying that school public schools should provide a continuity of learning is different from actually delivering it and it's simply impossible to deliver it at a kind of significant scale, given the timeframe and the resources that we have at our disposal. Thank you. The private providers that you work with how many are actually within your district. Within our district is about half so somewhere around the 20. 20 or within with your district. Others are how far away. Um, they could be up to Essex mill in South Burlington. Yeah. And just to clarify too we are similar to Meg so I'm providing services to children on ips that are in partner programs that's been the plan all along, as well as connecting with again like I said those directors that are running programs. Thank you. Questions from the committee. I just want to clarify my understanding is, and maybe I'm, this isn't correct that all public and private pre case are responsible for implementing the Vermont early learning standards. Okay, so is that are you saying that that's kind of difficult to do right now but in the regular school year and a normal time that is being done by all the private providers. Yes. Okay. Yeah, just wanted to clarify thank you. Yes. Just to be clear that's not what we're asking folks to do in the emergency. You know, so that's part of the tension I think is, you know, Mr. Lover to use the phrase service I mean, what we carefully phrase I think it probably needs further embellishment is we're asking district to support, not necessarily to serve. We don't think, you know, no one has a game plan for this but we don't think continuity learning for pre K students through remote learning look should look anything near like what it might be for a fifth grader, you know. Thank you. Anybody else committees quiet today. So why don't we go I do not think that Megan Roy is in the room yet. Is she. I'm going to leave. I'll say goodbye. Have a good weekend. Thank you. Okay, Steve, deputy commissioner from DCF. Welcome. Thank you. Committee. Thank you. Good afternoon chair and representatives for the record. I'm Stephen Brebeco deputy commissioner, child development division. Unfortunately, Melissa regal Garrett, our policy director isn't able to join us this afternoon. I have a brief report from our perspective here in CDD, and I like to keep it brief because I see that you have other witnesses ready to give testimony, and I want to make sure that they have an opportunity to share their stories. So we're seeing many cases of early childhood educators who are still in payroll, who are providing tremendous service to children and families by connecting with them and connecting with each other. In some cases they connect with families and children through media, like what we're using right now, teleconferencing. In some cases through preparing and dropping off activity bags for children and their families to use during this response period. And those educators are connecting with each other. That's what we're seeing. They're connecting with each other through forums that are put on by the early never mind really childhood network, and also through let's grow kids. They've taken a thunder out of Ali's testimony, but are really excited that they had a forum just yesterday with about 160 participants and that speaks to the strong interest among early childhood educators in sharing best practices and supporting each other during this time. And sorry. And that's, that's pretty much some of what we have our role in CDD is as a support for this collaboration. So for instance, when building bright futures has their online forum to discuss really childhood education in Vermont. We follow up by taking down all of the questions that are shared in the chat box during the forum. And we use that to generate our FAQs back to the field to make sure that we're all aware of what's going on and as informed as we can be. So it sounds like, you know, you're right that we have early childhood educators in the public programs and we have early childhood educators in the private programs and they're all they'll have they're all educated and licensed. So you are seeing that there is good conversation going on in the community. Do you. Is that correct. Yes, ma'am. Do you see that as being. Do you see that they are totally capable of taking this on with some areas of weakness, of course, but they are capable of taking this on, even though they're not operating. So I have a strong belief in our state's cater of early childhood educators and their ability to teach our youth as well as their ability to adjust and adopt to new circumstances. I agree because I traveled around the state and I've seen amazing, amazing teachers in both the public and the private programs and it's inspiring. So I am. Would you be able to support the concept, you know, with the secretary of saying that sure that the privates could possibly be held more accountable. They're getting paid. This is so the recent guidance that has been propagated by the agency education is something that we're all looking at actively. In fact, this afternoon, there was a building bright futures forum plan to discuss continuity of learning for pre K educators. Unfortunately, that that had been canceled because both Kate Rogers and Melissa Regal Garrett were unavailable. But that speaks to the attention that we're giving to this new guidance and our interest in finding the best way forward to support our educators in the field. The secretary wants to make sure that people aren't just coming to us that they're going to him. So I'm hoping that you will be able to work with him as well. I'm grateful for a very positive working relationship with the secretary and our colleagues in a we. Okay, questions for DCF. And I'm going to go on to Tracy Sawyers. I'm going to unmute myself. So, for the record Tracy Sawyers executive director of the Vermont Council of special ed administrators. And thank you as always for having me. So as you've heard and you've seen the guidance document, it instructs school districts to develop remote learning plans for preschool children who are rolled and rolled in the community based private programs under one 66. If we're going to hold to an expectation that there's a continuation of learning for these children. It also seems that we should be expecting private providers to provide access to learning, given they've accepted the public funds and again that the funds are being paid out. And most importantly because they have relationships with the children and families. So it seems important to have them stay connected and be in contact with those kids as their teachers. And then as it's been already stated, schools don't know these children and families. And from our perspective it's unrealistic and impossible to expect public school teachers to take on new students at this time which this really is and it seems in direct conflict with the idea of continuity. Fundamentally, I think trying to provide distance pre K to a significant number of children for whom school districts don't have relationships with seems highly problematic from a policy perspective, and also school districts are having a hard time connecting with their own families as you've been hearing. So, you know, trying to connect with these families who they don't know and families don't know them would be very challenging and as it's been said there's a capacity issue here, given just how much schools are doing anyway across the board right now. And this is not an insignificant number of children as we've heard it's a couple hundred in most and in ones that we've heard from today three to up to three to 400 kids in addition to the other children, they're serving. The CCSE a totally supports all children continuing to be connected with educators, and we support learning to the greatest extent possible during this time. And that's really the core of the continuity of learning. We also very much support paying the providers and not further imploding the system. However, there's been an agreement by private providers for form on behalf of the public system and it seems odd that we would not expect them to provide continuity of learning to this children that are in their act one 66 slots. And even if the rationale is that the private provider has been ordered to cease operation it does seem appropriate to bring them back to do this work and especially feels okay because they're getting paid for that I think expecting school to possibly do this for all the kids who are part of private provider program seems like an unusual request, as opposed to expecting their current educators to stay at the table. I think what's that's what's best for kids, especially three and four year olds to have continuation of learning from their known providers and teachers who could use a we and school district websites for resources, if necessary. I think you've heard a lot of this you'll hear more, but I just want to also say that I think this highlights the well documented challenges with the act one 66 construct that we've discussed at length, including dual oversight and and a whole bunch of other pieces capacity equity design complexity and just meeting the needs of children and families and we're going to have a lot of reflecting and rethinking to do in so many areas. When we get through this and this is certainly one of them. So, I know you have several witnesses and we have some similar testimony so I'll stop. I think we just really appreciate you taking this test testimony today and this is another area of significant concern and that we feel is not possible and we really need guidance to be implementable and make sense, both to the state and to districts so. Thank you. And one of the things that we are finding is that that may be one of the uses of our committee during this time to really be bearing witnesses to what's happening on the ground to some of the two actually informed future. So I think, Jay Nichols presents associate association. And they'll be followed by Sandra and Chelsea. Good afternoon. Thanks for having me. Thanks that we are finding people hear me okay now. Yeah. Okay. So Jay Nichols for the record executive director of the principal's association. I think what you just said it's kind of it's very important. You know, I think I told this committee before the ramen, a manual quote about don't let a crisis go to waste. So we should be thinking about how we can move forward and position ourselves in a better way to provide services for all kids. Once we get through this crisis. So thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding guidance around pre K during the time of the COVID-19 remote learning process. I promise not to mention anything about four year olds being in public schools. This committee has heard me testify many times about issues with pre K. The voucher program we have created while hopefully giving more access to more kids across the state, which I think in a way has done has led to an exasperation of inequities. The joint oversight provisions of the law while well intended, in most cases made it harder for schools to educate children. So our significant potential for lack of quality instruction in childcare settings because there is no requirement for a qualified teacher being required to provide for our instruction is paid for by taxpayer. I had fun dollars. Many of these inequities can be seen in play right now. Now, under the current guidance on providing continuity of learning, school teachers and administrators are being asked to provide remote learning for students that they don't even know in many cases. These are students that were being served in non school settings with the school district paying tuition for them out of the school district. Currently districts may have to pay the regular act 166 fees and tuition, while they are also being told to provide remote learning instruction for students that they don't know. Further enhancing the problem is that some places have many children in different settings as you just heard Stacy Curtis testify to that don't attend the school and they might only have one or two preschool teachers that are providing the service. So there's a capacity issue there. So the teacher in school becomes responsible for teaching children that they don't know along with the children that they already do know that they're trying to reach out to. So this is again a huge capacity issue for schools and preschool teachers especially. I believe a better solution would be for private providers to continue to provide services to the students through a remote strategy similar to what schools are doing and it sounds like many of them already are. The providers presumably know where students are in their learning so they're much better positioned to provide a continuity of learning plan. And they are also being paid so it makes sense to ask them to provide the educational services you're being paid to provide. I agree with Steven, Barack all that the privates do have the ability to provide these continuity of learning plans and so I personally think the best path forward. And I don't think you can do much about this other than through a bully pulpit is to ask the governor to amend his order to allow private programs offer continuity of learning to students and then to have the private programs use the local districts as resources for tools as necessary. So that that's my quickest testimony of the year. You're on me okay. I agree. I'm sure that we're going to be able to open it up to the room in a little while. I think we don't have we don't have Megan yet. So Sandra and Chelsea and Ali I know you are all working on solution at some point so maybe Sandra. You could talk with us a little bit about what you're seeing. unmute unmute. Maybe you could unmute her. Sandra and I are testifying together so while she's working on our audio I'm happy to get us started. If that works for you. I'll set every unmuted me thank you. Thank you for having us for the record Sandra Cameron policy director for the remote school boards Association and Chelsea and I are going to do a joint testimony and Tracy's Chelsea's going to lead us off. For the record Chelsea Myers from the Vermont superintendents Association it's really good to virtually see you all again. So thank you for inviting us to speak on behalf of the Vermont school boards Association and the Vermont superintendents Association on continuity of learning and Act 166 during the COVID-19 school closure period. Relationships and social and emotional development are at the forefront of continuity of learning for early learners. The number of states and local school systems have set developmentally appropriate recommendations of approximately 30 minutes of engagement per day for preschool students without requiring sustained attention for more than five minutes at a time. Key to successful distance learning for pre K students is trusting relationships between students and adults as we all know. In 2006 2020 Governor Phil Scott directed schools to make preparations for the continuation of learning for students from pre K to grade 12 as Secretary French stated for the remainder of the 2019 2020 school year subsequent guidance from the agency of education specified the following in regards to pre kindergarten education in Vermont. Learning for pre K students as required through the governor's directive should be developmentally appropriate and focus on social and emotional development. This aligns with the national recommendations as well. The agency of education will provide developmentally appropriate learning resources to the field to help with the implementation of continuity of learning to pre K students. School districts should support all resident pre K students including those that were served in private programs prior to the COVID-19 crisis. Private programs will continue to receive act 166 funding regardless of their operational status. Given the state's mixed delivery model there are many districts in which the majority of their resident pre K students are served by private providers. As private programs have closed or dramatically reduced their operation. Many of these students continuity of learning will fall on public schools that have no prior relationships with the students or their families. There is a fundamental conflict here between the assumption that public school staff can meaning meaningfully assume the responsibility for delivering a continuity of learning plan focused on social and emotional skills and the widely accepted theory that social and emotional skills are built through meaningful relationships. As stated in the Vermont early learning standards or otherwise known as the bells. Each and every child develops and learns. Trust in respect through nurturing responsive and predictable relationships with family members early childhood professionals and other adults and children. Currently school districts are only staff to support the needs of the students that attend their public pre K programs. In some cases districts are now asked to take on hundreds of new students and their families to support continuity of learning. To the best of our knowledge there is no additional funding to support this new requirement and existing act 166 tuition payments are being directed to private programs in order to support their financial stability during closure. There is conflicting information between the CDD child care stabilization program and the guidance issued by the agency of education. And we think that Meg Baker's testimony really spoke to this nicely. I'm going to let Sandra take over from here. So I'll keep the video on as long as my computer screen doesn't freeze. But if it does so I will shut that off again. The responsibility of the public schools during the COVID-19 crisis has grown significantly and will continue to grow. Given the developmental needs of our youngest students and the fiscal and capacity constraints of the mixed delivery system to provide a continuity of learning for all pre K students we offer the following recommendations. Create a central location for resources for families of pre K students and I have several examples the Boston Department of Learning New York City has an early childhood learn at home page Miami Dade County County Public Schools has an instructional continuity plan specifically for pre K. And Indiana Department of Education has a COVID remote learning resource page specifically for pre K so certainly we could replicate something like other parts of the country have done. School districts should send communications to families regarding available resources through, for example their websites their community forums email and other means of communication. We don't believe that would be a significant hardship for school districts because the children are already registered so we could certainly let children of private and public preschools know, let their families know where the resources are and how to access those public providers will continue to ensure the provision of early childhood special education services and support families of children with special needs to the greatest extent possible. Public and private providers that have existing relationships with students should connect with their students and direct them to the common location of resources. The Act 166 funds directed to providers can be used to support these one to one interactions with families and I just wanted to share a response to something that I heard a little bit earlier which is that childcare centers have been closed down. Certainly we have heard from many teachers who don't have great Wi Fi access right now. They, they left their classrooms and perhaps left all of their materials there, and they are figuring it out there. They're, you know, going to Wi Fi spots they are going to friends houses as little as possible to make connections with families so even though they are closed. So our school buildings and the teachers are finding ways to make this happen. There are policies and programs that support pre K students should collaborate to develop a system that connects students and families with essential support services. In the wake of the crisis the General Assembly will have an opportunity to reflect and act on our existing systems, including how we educating care for our youngest firm honors. To consider the following observations from the coven 19 crisis, the existing pre K delivery system is not able to provide continuity of learning and support to all students. That's what the guidance suggests school districts are being called upon to play the central role in assuring equity quality and accountability for all publicly funded pre K students continuity of learning. Shifting the responsibility of continuity of learning to public programs on behalf of private pre K programs that are continuing to be paid regardless of whether the child continues to be enrolled points to significant fiscal instability in the system. The pressures on financial resources for education now and for the unforeseeable future will exacerbate the consequences of the existing fiscal and education delivery inefficiencies. All students will return to school with increased needs for support. It's abundantly clear that the coven 19 crisis has far reaching consequences. Vermont needs a clear vision for high quality publicly funded early education and reliable and affordable childcare to contend with a new reality. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not seeing any questions now so what I'll do is open it up to Ali and then I think that's it unless Megan's in the room and then we can open it up to the whole group. Thank you very much and I'm really nice to see everyone for the record it's Ali Richard CEO of let's go kids. I really appreciate the opportunity to let let's her kids share a perspective on providing pre K services during this absolutely incredibly difficult time that we're all acknowledging. So let's her kids is trying to make sure ensuring that all children with a five access to high quality affordable care and we have been in this crisis moment been able to work with programs and on the ground early educators as well as the federal delegation and national groups in our administration to really just trying to make sure early education programs get through this that's where we are right now they have to just get through this they can actually open. So we're incredibly grateful I just have to note for the steps of the state of Vermont has taken across the board to ensure that actually families and employers and these early educators and our kids. Most of all are going to actually have childcare. When the dust settles so a big thank you for that with the continuation of both the CCF AP the act one CC six and then the stabilization program that builds upon that. I just have a few very quick points. First of all, as many have already noted in these incredibly stressful times in times of trauma and transition early educators actually play an absolutely key role in supporting children and families. And as somebody have said it's built upon the trusting relationship and the expertise that they have to provide developmentally appropriate resources and learning. I also have to say, second that many pre K private partners are already providing continued learning and supportive resources to families and children. So as Commissioner Rebecca said, don't worry you didn't steal my thunder we had 160 early educators on the webinar yesterday but we had an additional 150 plus so we actually have a total of 280 I believe early educators today and yesterday, who are working who are getting paid, who are working with their families and what we were able to do is showcase those who are doing the continuity of learning of the best. And we were able to share those sort of best practices for how to do this in a developmentally appropriate way from those who are doing it very very well, and had a huge response on those webinars so we will be continuing that. And we also do greatly appreciate the situation the Agency of Education is in. They have been doing incredible work as our other agency, you know partners and collaborators have as well to, as Secretary French said, deal with an incredibly difficult and very quickly evolving situation. Everything from providing food to remote learning plans, but in this instance we do disagree with this guidance. And it sounds like we are one of a chorus that does this free with this. And it's not only us from all of our partners that we are hearing from the ground, both in the private setting and the public setting. We are hearing disagreement of this and we're hearing that folks have been bringing this the Agency of Ed so I do hope we can continue to share this perspective directly with the agency, or perhaps a change here. So, it just does not make sense to rely exclusively on school district personnel who may not ever have met these families and children as so many have mentioned, and are being served currently through private partners to provide all this continuity really into very vulnerable young children. So, I just want to add a few more points pre K coordinators you heard from Meg Baker early in the testimony pre K coordinators we believe are invaluable assets to the communities schools private partner programs, and in supporting this continued outreach and for remote learning for pre K students. If it's the agency's goal to assure that these common standards of pre K, are in place the remainder of the school year. You know, we really believe let's her kids that pre K coordinators have the best understanding of these needs of school based and private pre K programs given their role as the linkages between the supervisor unions or school district school based pre K programs private pre create programs, and they're uniquely poised because of their this link in this complex system to be able to develop shared practices and guidance on how to do this remote pre K delivery so I really appreciate the time to share these points since I'm sort of on cleanup here at the end I really am reiterating what many have said already but we do greatly hope that this guidance is is reconsidered to so many are urging. We do really appreciate the role that early educators do play right now has been pointed out by many including the National Association of the education of young children. So thank you very much for the time. Thank you. I'm going to open it up to questions for anybody that's left in the room. So I think most people are just you can just wave your hand fairly comfortable with the 166 payments, continuing to provide that stability. You know, you're all pretty good with that idea. And that the guidance needs some work. And we also have underestimated the talents of some of our pre K providers in their ability to provide continuity of learning. I personally can't imagine going and trying to zoom with some three year old I've never met. I can barely get my three year old grandson to pay attention to me when I'm saying happy birthday to him so I just can't imagine a stranger doing that. So is is Megan here yet. Oh, Caleb, did I miss me. Can you talk some questions. Caleb. Thank you. Um, yeah, so I, I just wanted to see if I'm understanding correctly because I know it has been a little on secretary speaking to this. There are a couple different program program which I guess I heard the secretary characterizes something that's kind of there to help parents keep their enrolled spot if they're able to pay the other 50% or some amount of money associated by the program. But, but what I'm hearing is that the UP came money, the universal pre came money is going to flow to those programs, irregardless of whether those spots are are maintained are enrolled you know I've heard some things that if a parent or they choose to or say we can't pay the 50% we're going to lose the spot. Then a program be compelled to sort of go through their wait list and see if somebody would take that but if nobody would take that spot and it was empty that the universal pre came money would still be paid for the empty spot. Um, I just wanted to I guess first check if I'm understanding that right if that's if that's correct that sort of at the end of the day. If nobody takes the spot that that whatever money would have come for the student who was enrolled the beginning of this payment period for the vouchers that that money will be paid irregardless. And I don't know, I guess that's an open end question anyone who feels they can understand my question and can answer it. If I could further clarify the question for FY 20 has all the money already been paid anyway. Meg's looking to answer. I was gonna say I can take a stab at it. So, all of most of the districts have pre paid through the end of the school year. Not all our district paid right about the time that the school closure happened for the remainder of the school year. But we can reconcile for any remaining weeks of the year, which was initially what we thought we were going to have to do based on the CDD stabilization program. But my understanding about this most recent guidance from the AOE is that the money goes to the program. Regardless, the all the act on 66 money goes to the program whether or not that child is enrolled, whether or not they are offering any services. So Caleb this is sort of addressed to you a little bit. The child's enrollment doesn't impact what happens with the funds the funds or the programs no matter what. And I think where it gets complicated is this this idea of 50% versus 100% and I think probably I would defer to CDD secretary for that. Maybe you could explain that to us. Mr Barbera. Thank you for the question. I certainly wouldn't want to speak on behalf of agency of education and their intent with the program and their decision on how the money will flow. I can confirm that my understanding is that the UPK dollars will continue to flow to a closed provider. Regardless of whether there is a child in the slot. I hope that that's helpful. What was the value of the enrolling unenrolling that Meg was bringing up. I didn't quite follow that one. I'm sorry ma'am though. There was a question of that unenroll as childcare but enroll, keep enrolled as pre K that that would affect financing. Someone understand that better than I do. I think the secretary pushed back on that when Meg brought it up. And Meg, would you mind clarifying that. I wouldn't mind. So, if, if you think of a full, a child who's enrolled in a full time program. If you think of having 40 hours a week. Many children have more some children have less 10 of those hours are pre K so a quarter of them. And those are free to that family. They're entirely paid for by the district. The other in this case 30 hours would be covered by a combination of perhaps parent private pay. And that would be for the childcare financial assistance program in, in typical times. So, I think what I'm asking is, can we unenroll from just those 30 hours to maintain the stability, but keep them enrolled for the 10 hours. I think I'd feel more comfortable discussing that question with Secretary of French or a member of his team. Coming up with a response solely on behalf of CDD. That's fine. Sarita Austin, also I did notice that that Megan Roy is in the room and she probably has answers to these questions. So Megan if we're, if we're tossing something around. I'd be happy to jump in Kate, I had the same, I had the same answer that Meg had to that one. Sorry, I'm going to mute myself and figure this out. I was just, I'm going to ask my question. Can you, can someone tell me how many pre K coordinators there are in the state. Everybody have access to every district have access or districts like a regional thing have access to a pre K coordinator. I, I can take a stab at that. Every district has figured out coordination, and many districts have done that. Some districts have done that regionally. Some districts have done that by identifying a coordinator. Sometimes that is just something added to others. I mean, I didn't make I don't know if you want, we could talk about the different structures that exist in our region but it I don't, it's not universal. Let's go to Chelsea on that. Yeah, we have collected information on that. In terms of the specific numbers, I can't say off the top of my head. But Megan is right in that some have regional approaches, some have a specific coordinator for their specific school district or supervisory union. Others are looking to regionalize and get coordinators so do not have one at the moment and frankly a lot of them divide the labor amongst positions that already exist. For example, special ed directors and other people within the district so the answer is no not all of them have it. I would say that pretty universally when I collected information they all desired to have it. So, I could get you more specific numbers, if you would like them but I can't state them off the top of my head. That was in our in our pre K bill. I know. And I'm just the other one more question is. Okay, what is going on. This is just an educational question being a former educator are all will all four year olds have some way of transitioning to kindergarten is there any more emphasis, like on the four year olds that will be going to kindergarten in terms of at least trying to get them, you know, kind of ready, you know, school ready, in terms of when they enter kindergarten, is there a little bit more emphasis on the four year olds. Serita, do you mean now, given the school closure situation. Yeah, not not huge but just, you know, just to get a little bit less traumatic transitioning cold to a kindergarten. Yeah, I can only speak from the perspective of our district I know that is something that we don't have an answer to yet, but want to figure that out. And, you know, we have, we have fairly seamless structures with our partner pre K program so I think at some level our earlier coordinator it's a matter of identifying who the kids are and figuring that out I don't think we have a good answer to it yet though. I'm happy to be here with you. Okay, thank you. Peter. Thanks, I just wanted to go back to Ali's testimony. And we seem to be sort of in line with with what we've heard, but were you implying or maybe you said it outright and I just didn't hear that yes in fact we could. We don't have an unreasonable expectation to have the private pre K providers to be in charge of the continuity of education for the for their clients. Absolutely. And as many said, you know, they're getting paid tuition to do so. You know, there are many of them that are doing it. They're just, they're just doing it because it's the right thing to do they have the relationships with the families they've been doing it from day one well before guidance even came down the pike. So, yes, not only can it happen. It is happening in many cases. And I will say, you know, as you know with the stabilization program and the money flowing from CC FAP and act one CC six, you know, many many programs are keeping their educators on payroll. So they are willing to enable many of them are doing professional development right now with this time so they are ready and wanting to do this. And, you know, some though some programs have, you know, sort of shuttered their doors gone on furlough and not participated for a variety of reasons. You know, in the stabilization program so yes there are some that would be a little trickier, but what we're seeing in those 280 folks that got on the webinar between today and yesterday that yes it's not unreasonable request and many are doing it. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I kind of open ended in terms of or open to whoever might want to answer to this question. I guess I'm trying to clarify in the case where a family again going back to if you don't keep that enrollment so family chooses, or is unable to pay the 50% to keep their spot and so they become unenrolled. So what happened is the, does the district is sending the UPK funds still have an obligation for continuity of learning for that unenrolled student. The money is still flowing to the program with the students been enrolled. I imagine that's not a totally common scenario but also, I'm guessing it's one that exists. I don't know if anyone's come across that or knows how that would, how that would play out in terms of responsibility on the school district's part. Is there a person you're directing that to mags here we go. I actually asked that question today in a phone conversation with agency of education staff. And was told that they would have to that there would be additional guidance coming out that would give us more information about that but there is no answer right now. And then Kathleen. Yeah thanks directed to whomever would like to answer I just want to make sure that I really understand how this stabilization program is working and I figure I've got all the right people in the room so Let's take a 40 hour a week family in a private provider. So 10 hours are acts at publicly funded pre K. That's an act 166 voucher that money is continuing to flow to that private provider, regardless of the remaining 30 hours. If the family wants to retain their spot. They're being asked to pay 50% of the tuition. Regardless of whether CC FAP is a part of it or not. If they can't, then they're out and the state is paying for that spot at 100%. Yes. And so the easiest way to look at that is if I take you back to that same 40 hour a week kid. Yeah. Our district is paying about $95 a week for those 10 hours. That's $166 voucher money. Right yeah when 66 voucher money. Okay, taking say, imagining that 100% of tuition for the week is $200 just because it makes it for easy math not because that's an actual figure. $25 would be applied first under the way that the guidance has come out from CDD first to the family's 50%. And so, so the family might then have just $5 left right and the CDD stabilization fund would pick up that other $100. Their total tuition cost is the pre K funding, plus what parents pay or subsidy pays. And, and the way that the guidance reads pre case is being applied to the parent portion of that 50%. And programs are also allowed to accept less rather than unrolling child children. So if the family couldn't pay that $5 copay, the program could say well for this period we're going to exempt the child from having from that and the state would pick up 50%. If they unenroll the child though they get the full amount up to $360 a week. So provide private providers at this time have a pretty good flow of revenue, they might be out some money on that on that 50% part of the equation that we're talking about. Yes, and general depending on how much their total tuition is right so for some program that's costs $400 a week is going to be out substantially more. $100 is not necessarily a reasonable figure but it made for easy math. Okay, I just wanted to make sure I was really understanding. I guess the context in which we're talking about privates stepping up and taking over these co wells, and I think that I am. Okay, thanks. Other questions. I hope that you people will speak make contact with a way as the secretary reminded us this is actually not in our billy wick at this point in time that he'd like to hear from you directly. However, we have found that sometimes this is a. This is a good forum. Sandra did you have something. I'm sorry. I was just going to add to Kathleen James to your question. There's also the payroll protection program that some programs have applied for as well to help protect any expenses that they're incurring. Thanks. Okay. I think that completes this portion I had thought this was going to take the full two hours but it didn't it ended up working out exactly the way we had planned it. Avery that at 315 we move over to at 173 delay, but then I canceled everybody right, which wasn't too swift. I canceled the most important people which is the general council from the agency and our, our council. I will. Maybe we'll take a break for a minute and then we'll let people that don't really want to hear about Act 173 delay can go and if you want to stay and do it that's fine. But why don't we just take a five minute break and we'll see if we can get in touch with Jim. Good.