Progress on a bill expanding pre-K education has slowed during the past week, mired by concerns that it amounts to a voucher program. But supporters and critics are working behind the scenes to strike a compromise to get the bill out of committee in time for the House to vote on it.
 The bill passed out of the House Education Committee with strong support.  The Ways and Means Committee gave it a more tepid reception. Several committee members were worried about costs, but the most enduring concern stems from the wide choice the bill gives parents in selecting a pre-K program.
Rep. Dave Sharpe, D-Bristol, says he can’t support a bill that turns public education at the pre-K level into a voucher program.
The legislation allows parents to enroll their children at any public or accredited private pre-K program at the expense of their local school district. The district must pay tuition— set at a statewide rate— regardless of whether or not it operates a program.
 Universal pre-K access is a key part of Gov. Peter Shumlin’s education initiative. But Sharpe says the way that goal is achieved in the bill is an issue for him.
 “I have a philosophical concern about that. I don’t think the best way to run our school system is with vouchers. I think it eventually leads to a breakdown of our public schools and different levels of education for different levels of income, and I don’t think that’s healthy for our state,” Sharpe said.
 The bill is currently in the domain of the House Appropriations Committee, but deliberation there is in the doldrums until the voucher concerns are resolved.
 While Sharpe calls it a “mandatory voucher system,” Rep. Sarah Buxton, D-Tunbridge, refers to as a “portable tuition program.”
 Buxton, a lead sponsor of the legislation, says this provision makes it easier for working parents to take advantage of the program because it can be more convenient to drop off their children near their job rather than in their home district.
 “Universal access isn’t a reality until we make sure whatever system we vote in takes into consideration the barriers to  access for working parents,” Buxton said.
 But Sharpe is worried that if a family has full choice, the pre-K program in their local school district may suffer, which could make it harder for other families in that district to access early education.
 The town of Starksboro, which falls in Sharpe’s district, has operated a pre-K program for decades, but since many residents work in Chittenden County, Sharpe says the bill could spark an exodus from the program.
 “I don’t know what the break-point is for those schools but at some point you lose enough students and you have to close the school. So then where does that leave the students whose parents don’t work in Chittenden County? What do they do for preschool if you manage to kill the preschool in Starksboro?” Sharpe said.
 Buxton and Sharpe have been working with several other lawmakers to come up with a palatable fix.  House Majority Leader Willem Jewett, D-Ripton, says he and House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morrisville, are keeping tabs on the “work groups” but the bill is in a “holding pattern” until they work something out.
 Meanwhile, education stakeholders have been discussing the matter in impromptu huddles in the Statehouse hallways.
 Lawmakers say they are on the verge of reaching some middle ground.  Sharpe plans to offer an amendment that would require school districts with pre-K programs to provide vouchers only if they can’t also support families’ child care needs.
 “It’s not everything I want, because in the end, a voucher could be required but at least it gives communities like Starksboro the ability to preserve their preschool,” Sharpe said, but he’ll vote for the bill if it includes this change.
 The amendment will make for a more complex bill, but Buxton says she is willing to sacrifice some of the bill’s original simplicity.
 “We often hear from school districts that education laws and rules laws are complex and this is a complex arrangement, but I think, in the complexity is the equity and fairness we are after.”