[S]ome children eligible for the first year of state-funded pre-kindergarten might not be able to start on time because of questions about who is responsible for overseeing security checks on private preschool providers.
Some providers didn’t finish the needed security checks by the start of the school year. Superintendents have been warned by their trade associations not to pay those providers for care given through the new statewide voucher system, despite assurances from the administration that districts are not in legal jeopardy for doing so.
“We have been very clear, the governor and the agencies have been very clear: The superintendents are not on the hook,” said Rep. Sarah Buxton, D-Tunbridge, who sponsored Act 166, the 2014 law that is supposed to ensure universal pre-K starting this year.
State officials couldn’t say how widespread the problem with security checks may be.
The new pre-K program provides parents with vouchers they can use at any private or public prekindergarten, and the money comes out of the budget in the school district where they reside.
Superintendents are responsible for sending tuition checks to private preschools. State education law, known as Title 16, also says they are responsible for ensuring that any employee in their district or that they contract with has passed a background check that includes fingerprinting. With the rollout of universal pre-K, that can include many private providers with which districts don’t have existing relationships.
Districts have until now seen to their own fingerprinting, using third-party services. But the state has taken over the fingerprinting process for the pre-K years under the responsibility of the Child Development Division of the Department for Children and Families. State education law, however, doesn’t reflect that change in responsibility — which has superintendents raising red flags about liability.
“We are aware that some private providers are just beginning the (Child Development Division) background check and have not cleared in time for the start of the school year,” Education Secretary Rebecca Holcombe wrote to superintendents Wednesday.
Several factors have led to a backlog in performing the security checks at CDD.
New regulations that went into effect last month require all employees at child care and early education centers — not just those accepting Act 166 vouchers — to be fingerprinted in addition to the background checks they already undergo.
And because the public pre-K voucher dollars follow the child and can be used in any district, some providers might have to be fingerprinted for multiple school districts.
Because the CDD is just getting its vetting system up and running, and there are a lot of Act 166 providers seeking approval, some employees have yet to be cleared, according to Deputy DCF Commissioner Reeva Murphy, who heads the Child Development Division.
“CDD is prioritizing background checks for pre-K staff members who have not already been cleared by school districts,” Murphy said in an email.
Neither CDD nor the Education Agency could confirm the number of providers that are still seeking approval. Murphy said that was because of the past practice and the new system overlapping. “We don’t have a clear picture on how many have not been cleared for Title 16,” she said.
In July 2015, the Agency of Education told superintendents that the background check provision in Title 16 would apply to private pre-K operators who partner with school districts.
Superintendents learned this summer that some first-time providers and some that are new to their supervisory unions didn’t have their paperwork in order.
In August, Administration Secretary Justin Johnson issued a memo assuring superintendents it would be OK for them to use “assurances or other guarantees” from child care centers that any staff who have not yet been vetted will not have unsupervised access to children.
But the Vermont School Boards Association, the Vermont Superintendents Association and the Vermont School Board Insurance Trust, a group that manages risk for school systems, took issue with “unsupervised” and worried that assurances from providers might not hold up in a courtroom because of superintendents’ obligation under state law.
In a memo the next day, they cautioned their members and urged them to contact their attorneys.
“You may need to delay payments to private providers until all of their (private pre-K) employees have been cleared through fingerprint supported background checks,” stated the memo.
Buxton suggested that position is motivated by concern about public dollars going to private schools. “There are supervisory unions and superintendents who have, from the start, not wanted to partner with private organizations because they have an interest in making sure those kids and that money stays in their district,” she said.
According to Buxton, the Legislature chose a hybrid system in order to support Vermont families’ needs and get more children access to early learning opportunities.
But Jeff Francis, executive director of the Vermont Superintendents Association, flatly rejected that accusation. “I know of no instance whatsoever where a superintendent or school district would use this bureaucratic and regulatory conflict to avoid working with private providers,” he said Friday.
Francis said superintendents are trying to follow the law that “clearly states that pre-K is now part of the public school system and superintendents have been obligated to ensure that all employees serving public school children have fingerprint-supported criminal background checks.”
He blames the background check problems on the fact that universal pre-K is jointly controlled by two agencies, Education and Human Services, through its Department for Children and Families. This “has not been caused at the school district level,” he said.
In most supervisory unions, the issue is being sorted out, according to Matt Levin, executive director of The Vermont Early Childhood Alliance, an advocacy group for parents, early child care organizations and providers. “This is a problem that will only come up once,” he added.
The education secretary’s Wednesday memo offered superintendents some options.
One is to delay programs until security checks have been confirmed. Act 166 requires only that students be provided 10 hours a week of pre-K for 35 weeks by the close of the school’s fiscal year.
The other option she offered was for centers that already have an educator on site who is licensed by the Agency of Education. In that case, the supervisory union can enter into a one-year contract for 350 hours that would end with the current school year. Teachers licensed by the agency have the appropriate background checks.
Francis said he is glad the administration has come up with some ways to address the issue. But he added, “It is unfortunate that this wasn’t accomplished well before the start of the school year.”
Holcombe wrote in Wednesday’s memo that the Education Agency would ask the Legislature to amend the state law that obligates superintendents.
Buxton said she will introduce legislation when the 2017 legislative session begins to make clear where the responsibility for vetting pre-K providers lies. “We will designate in law … we will be explicit about saying: It is appropriate for CDD to be the source for school districts to get fingerprint and background checks,” she said.
Click on the links below to read the memos:
education-secretarys-july-2015-memo
