Vermont lawmakers are wrestling with a deceptively simple question: how should the state handle preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds?
The answer could reshape child care, school funding, and access to early education across the state — and officials are warning that getting it wrong could have unintended consequences for families and providers alike.
At issue is Vermont’s Universal Prekindergarten (UPK) system, which currently guarantees up to 10 hours per week of publicly funded preschool for most 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds. The program, fully implemented in 2016, operates through a mix of public schools and private child care providers.
Now, as part of a broader education overhaul tied to Act 73 — a sweeping law aimed at restructuring school funding and governance — lawmakers are considering changes to how pre-K is delivered, funded, and expanded.
🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁
A system that works — but unevenly
Vermont’s pre-K system ranks among the strongest in the country, with high participation and school readiness rates. But access varies widely depending on where families live.
Lawmakers heard that some regions still have limited availability, with far fewer slots than demand, while others offer more comprehensive programs.
That uneven access has pushed legislators to look for ways to expand availability, particularly for 4-year-olds.
But that’s where things get complicated.
The core debate: 3-year-olds vs. 4-year-olds
One idea under discussion is to increase the number of hours offered to 4-year-olds — potentially moving toward longer or even full-day programs.
To do that, lawmakers have floated shifting resources away from 3-year-olds, who might instead be served through child care subsidy programs rather than the school-based pre-K system.
But education officials, providers, and advocates pushed back strongly.
They argue that Vermont’s current model — offering two years of part-time pre-K for both 3- and 4-year-olds — is intentional and effective.
Some research, they said, suggests two years of early education may be more beneficial than a single longer year.
There are also practical concerns. Not all families qualify for child care subsidies, meaning some 3-year-olds could lose access to early education entirely if they are pushed out of the pre-K system.
Risks to child care providers
One of the biggest concerns raised during testimony is the potential impact on Vermont’s fragile child care system.
Many private providers rely on 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds to balance their budgets. Caring for infants and toddlers is significantly more expensive, and providers often offset those costs with older children.
If more 3- and 4-year-olds shift into public school programs, providers could lose that revenue — and reduce or eliminate infant and toddler care as a result.
Officials pointed to other states, including California, where similar changes led to child care center closures.
Special education and vulnerable families
The debate also touches on special education services.
In Vermont, school districts are responsible for providing special education starting at age 3. Those services are often delivered in integrated classrooms alongside other preschoolers.
If 3-year-olds are removed from the pre-K system, districts may have to redesign how they deliver those services — potentially increasing costs and reducing effectiveness.
Programs like Head Start, which serve low-income and high-need families, also depend on a mix of federal and state funding tied to pre-K enrollment.
Providers warned that if funding for 3-year-olds is reduced, they would not be able to maintain current service levels and would likely serve fewer children.
Funding disparities under scrutiny
Alongside the age debate, lawmakers are examining how pre-K is funded.
Currently, public school programs often receive significantly more funding per student than private providers offering the same service.
Some legislators want to equalize those payments, arguing that children should receive comparable support regardless of where they are enrolled.
But increasing funding for private providers could come with new requirements, such as higher staff qualifications or licensing standards — changes that could further reshape the system.
What it means for parents and taxpayers
For parents, the outcome of this debate could affect:
- Whether their child has access to pre-K at age 3
- How many hours of care are available
- Whether programs are offered locally or require travel
For working families, especially, the structure of pre-K matters. Many rely on a mix of school-based pre-K and paid child care to cover a full workday.
For taxpayers, the stakes are tied to Vermont’s broader education spending, which is already among the highest in the nation and a key driver of rising property taxes.
Expanding services — or restructuring funding — could increase costs in the short term, even if lawmakers hope for long-term efficiencies.
A cautious path forward
Despite interest in expanding access and improving the system, lawmakers signaled a cautious approach.
Several emphasized a “do no harm” mindset, noting that Vermont’s pre-K system is functioning well overall and that changes could have ripple effects across education and child care.
For now, the most likely path forward appears incremental: addressing funding inequities and geographic access gaps while avoiding major structural changes — especially those that would reduce services for 3-year-olds.
The broader question — how to expand and improve early education without destabilizing the system — remains unresolved.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram
#fyivt #VermontPolicy #ChildCareCrisis #PreKDebate
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply