[A] new report analyzing Vermont’s universal pre-kindergarten law finds that Act 166 has increased access to early education for many families in Vermont.
According to the report, 74% of kindergarteners last year were enrolled in pre-K the prior year, according to the report. And about 30% of parents surveyed said they wouldn’t have accessed any care if it hadn’t been for the law, which gives every 3- and 4-year-old access to 10 hours of publicly funded care, either through a voucher or a public school-based program.
“Let’s acknowledge that quality and access is improving for kids and families in Vermont. And that is a very good thing. So, at first, let’s not go backwards on this,” said Aly Richards, chief executive officer at Let’s Grow Kids, an early education advocacy group.
But the report also surfaced key tensions in Vermont’s mixed-delivery system. Private providers, for example, who often pay significantly less than public providers, reported struggling to recruit and retain high-quality, licensed teachers.
There is a general shortage of early-educators, in large part because of extremely low pay in the industry, and some providers suggested removing some requirements for teachers in order for programs to qualify for vouchers. But Richards said the state would be better served increasing its investment in the system – not lowering its standards.
“I think research clearly shows that outcomes improve with a certain level of preparation. So it’s our job to create a realistic plan that gets us there,” she said.
And equal access remains a problem, according to the report. Low-income children were more likely to have fewer qualified providers within their school district boundaries than their more affluent peers. And English-language learners were under-enrolled in pre-kindergarten programs.
Early education remains a topic of heavy interest in Montpelier. Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, has made investments in early care and learning a top priority, as have key lawmakers in the Democratic -controlled Legislature. House Education Committee chair Rep. Kate Webb, D-Shelburne, said she expected to spend time returning to Act 166 in the upcoming legislative session.
“I expect to see a bill before the committee in January that addresses some of the issues brought up in this report,” she said.
The report highlighted an oft-repeated complaint about the law: that the dual oversight of the program by both the Agencies of Human Services and Education have created redundant and overly burdensome bureaucratic obstacles for providers, both public and private.
Officials at both agencies have been in agreement since the law’s troubled rollout in 2016 that the dual regulatory system needs to be streamlined. But proposals crafted by the education agency offering to take responsibility for oversight have gone nowhere at the Statehouse two years in a row.
“Human Services and the Agency of Education have had this cat fight going on over early education and it’s really dysfunctional. And they need to stop it and start working together,” said Bill Mathis, a former superintendent and member of the State Board of Education.
Mathis, who is also the managing director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder, said he had concerns about small sample sizes in the report’s surveys. But he also said he agreed with most of its conclusions.
Meanwhile, while most parties agree paperwork involved in the program must be simplified, some providers expressed concerns about a lack of on-the-ground monitoring. Public providers, in particular, said the system relied too heavily on self-reporting and should include site visits to audit for quality. Public programs also often reported feeling uncertain about who was responsible for ensuring that private providers they partnered with were following the rules.
The report ultimately recommended more monitoring occur. But it also acknowledged that this would require additional staffing and resources at the state level.
Jeanne Collins, the superintendent in the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union, called the report “fascinating” and said it generally did a great job capturing the sticking points in the pre-K law.
But she did think some problems were under-discussed. In particular, she was surprised that only providing 10 hours weekly of publicly funded care wasn’t better emphasized as a key barrier to access.
“In my experience, folks who were unable to access the public pre-K said it was because it didn’t match their work schedule,” she said. “Families without transportation, families without means, they can’t pick kids up after two-and-a-half hours.”
That was a key issue, too, for Krista Huling, the chair of the State Board of Education. (Huling noted the board hadn’t yet reviewed the report together, and that she could only speak for herself.) A working mother herself, Huling said her own daughter hadn’t been able to attend her district’s public pre-K program because the hours weren’t feasible. She had been able to access a voucher through Act 166 to help pay for the only local, qualified private provider, but only because she’d put her name on a waitlist while she was still pregnant. A friend wasn’t so lucky.
“The fact that it’s 10 hours really excludes working families,” Huling said.
Collins also thought one potential suggested by the report – providing busing – wouldn’t make much sense with 3- and 4-year-olds.
“Transportation comes with its own extreme issues,” she said.
Read the full report below: