Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay, this is House Education on Thursday, January 8. The current event right now is hearing from the Vermont School Boards Association. This sort of session of testimony is really kind of the general start of the year overview of priorities, concerns, and whatnot. We will be talking more with the organization over specific Act 73 stuff. We have joint hearings with the Senate as well. I'm not saying that any questions about that are out of bounds. All I'm just saying is that we're we're talking about other things right now. We're going to have plenty of time. But anyway, I think I'll just do this. Turn it over to you, Sue, to introduce yourself and lead us through your presentation.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Thank you very much. I'm Sue Seglowski. I'm the Executive Director for the Vermont School Boards Association. And I am prepared to talk with you today about our current position on Act 73 and also our priorities for the twenty twenty six legislative session. So I'll start out, with the current position on Act 73. BSBA appreciates the goals of Act 73 to improve student outcomes, create a more cost effective system of schools and districts, and ensure the most efficient use of public finances. And we support seeking viable, sustainable solutions to these pressing issues in public education. However, our members have raised grave concerns about the process through which the state has begun to pursue these goals, including Act 70 three's primary strategy of mandatory district sizes of 4,000 to 8,000 students. The approach and the timeline prescribed in Act 73 would lead to a major overhaul during a short time period without adequate consideration for the impact of such upheaval on districts, schools, educators, families, and communities, and most importantly, on the students that we serve. The VSBA is grateful for the work of the school district redistricting task force, and we applaud the task force's measured evidence based community centered approach. The task force's report to the General Assembly recommends three main strategies that we believe may advance some of the goals of Act 73 and merit further exploration by your committee. The report underscores the urgency to address the cost drivers that have led to significant financial challenges statewide. We appreciate the task force's acknowledgment that they found no evidence that large scale mandated district mergers and consolidations would lower costs, improve educational outcomes, or expand equity. We support in concept the task force's recommendation related to strategic voluntary mergers of school districts, guided by feasibility studies and designed to relieve fiscal pressures. At the same time, we recognize that the state has an important role to play in ensuring that any mergers result in a more equitable system of school districts, particularly so that voluntary partnerships do not exacerbate existing disparities in resources, opportunities and outcomes for students. The SBA remains committed to working closely with the General Assembly and other state and local leaders to devise plans that best serve the students and families in our communities. And we will continue to advocate for the outcomes described in our position paper, responsible implementation of Act 73, which I included in my testimony today and provided to all of you. So I'll go on to cover a little bit of what that position paper says. The VSBA has developed its own set of criteria for evaluating any proposals and plans that emerge through the Act 73 process, reflecting the needs and priorities that have been identified by school board members from across the state. Before I cover those criteria, a few points. As we continue to explore options for shaping the future of public education in Vermont, we strongly urge state officials to ensure that school board members have strong and meaningful participation in the decision making throughout the remaining phases of the project and ensure that the affected communities have a voice in any proposals related to school mergers and closures. We'd also ask that the legislature provide detailed analysis data and evidence to support the premise that widespread consolidation and redistricting will yield lower costs, better schools and ultimately improve student outcomes if you are headed in that direction. And develop a comprehensive action plan and timeline that address the vast range of considerations and variables that must be taken into account to ensure successful implementation of any redistricting proposal. Now I'll move on to the VSBA's criteria for a successful statewide plan. Our members from across the state have shared their perspectives on the essential components of any plan to transform public education in Vermont. And we believe that successful proposals for reorganizing Vermont's public school districts will first be grounded in a unified vision for Vermont's Pre K through 12 education system. Second, demonstrate improvements in student outcomes supported by evidence that proposed models will deliver better learning experiences and results. Third, ensure equitable access to public educational opportunities, including academic programs, support services and extracurricular activities. Fourth, share responsibility for students across all districts acknowledging that some populations require additional resources. Fifth, expand access to high quality career education and flexible pathways that meet future workforce needs. Sixth, increase resources for modern, safe and adaptable school facilities. Seven, address rising cost drivers, health benefits, mental health services, facilities needs and special education in ways that are transparent and cost effective. Eighth, ensure meaningful participation by school boards and communities throughout the process. Nine, base decisions on detailed data and cost analysis before adoption of any structural changes. And this includes evaluating projected cost savings and impacts on class sizes, staffing levels, and educational quality. And tenth, support thoughtful implementation with robust transition plans and appropriate funding to minimize disruption and ensure effective outcomes. School boards strongly urge that redistricting where considered be based on sound research, clear evidence of benefits and robust community engagement. Decisions should reflect regional differences, uphold local democratic participation, and preserve community connections to schools. I'll move on now to our legislative priorities, unless Maybe we'll stop here and pause and folks have questions on this, I think

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I might just ask in general, much of what is asked for here probably couldn't be delivered by, before making any changes. There's a long list of things that the SBA says needs to be in place before significant change is made. This is a pretty tough list, I think, for any state with any amount of resources to fulfill. In the absence of being able to sort of apply to create all of these assurances, should we do nothing?

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I think this list was created really as a way for the VSBA to evaluate any proposal. And it isn't, the list is not ordered it with a certain priority or there, and there's not a certain amount of weight given to any criteria. I think that the VSBA board would look at any proposal in its entirety and apply these criteria and then make a decision about whether they support the proposal or not.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Questions? We can talk further about this tomorrow in the joint testimony more. I don't want to take up a lot of time on this. Much of the of The ESPN strongly supports strategic voluntary mergers. Voluntary mergers are a concept that exists currently under law. How do you see the intersection of How does the state mandate a strategic voluntary merger?

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Well, mandatory and voluntary sort of Absolutely conflicted. Right, exactly, yeah. So I think if it was voluntary, there would need to be, or it would be helpful if there were some incentives. Financial incentives. Yes. And I do believe that there are districts around the state that are looking at this right now. We submitted a report to the redistricting task force, which I'd be happy to submit to your committee if you haven't seen it, where we surveyed school boards. And I think we had 68% respond. And there's a lot of information in that report about what they are doing with their neighbors. Think what it's gonna be very helpful to our committee and really to the legislature in general is taking what we have here

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: in front of us, but adding a lot more specificity to it. Yes. Because really without specificity, we can't really, that's really at the point we're at is specificity. These are our high level aspirational goals that I certainly applaud Free Root. I'm not quite sure we have the capacity, or if anybody has the capacity, to meet all of them. At a certain point, major change requires a bit of a leap of faith, and I'm not sure, and I guess, is there any leap of faith your organization is willing to take? I also can look at some of this and say, well, this is not really at the state level, it's at the district level to assure. But anyway, the prior point is that this is high on the attraction ladder and low on the specificity ladder, and you can provide us with more significant help with significantly more specific proposal ideas.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Yes, we'd be happy to provide you with some more specific ideas as the session unfolds. And

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, if we could get them here by later this afternoon, that's The clock is ticking quickly. I think we heard a threat, but also a strong message from the governor that may or may not resonate with Vermonters, but I think we need to be prepared to respond. Something a little more easy to grab onto than this. No, please, have a So

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: one response I wanted to provide to your leap of faith question is that a lot of these criteria, you're right, are at the district level. And I think the point is that the, system as a whole needs to be designed so that these things can be accomplished at the district level.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes, but what I'm hearing you say is that we need to back off the idea of the state design the system.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I don't think that's what we're saying. I think what I'm saying is that any system the state does design, we will be measuring against these criteria to see what level of support we have for it.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: I was gonna say, I recall seeing or skimming through that report that was provided to the task force about which districts are currently undergoing conversations about voluntary murder. So I think it would be really helpful to have that. I'd be happy to see that. That'd be great. And is there a couple of high level takeaways from that you want to share? I need to have my memory refreshed on it for a little bit.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I guess if we're going to ask for that, I'd like to know the status of those. How close are they? Or are they just in initial discussions?

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Yeah, I'd be happy to, maybe I could talk about that tomorrow afternoon. Okay, great. When I talk with you again.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Education)]: First I will. Thank you. In my experience as a school board member over the years and recognizing even at the state level that there's a lot of variation in perspectives across the state, reflecting back on what Representative Conlon was sharing, how divided do you feel the school board members are and even your board are on being able to define, bring more definition to some of these criteria for us? I mean, is there a lot of variation? I know what my area feels like, but it's always hard to grasp what other folks really feel like except for those who sit around

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the table and tell us.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Well, there is definitely a broad range of opinions among school board members. And I would say that our board is quite they have very robust discussions on these topics and they are able to come to a majority decision and support that decision.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay, good. There's questions. And again, this topic will be a major focus in our hearings. Thank you very much, Sue. Let's go ahead and move on to the- Priorities? Happy to.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Before I move on to covering the SBA's legislative priorities, it is very critical to note that school board members across the state are working very hard on budgets that provide a high quality education at a cost that is supported by taxpayers. In this extremely challenging time with costs rising, school board members are as concerned as everyone else about the rising, property taxes. Sustainable education transformation must address structural cost drivers, especially healthcare benefits, while being guided by evidence transparency and meaningful community engagement. Without these elements, reforms risk increasing costs, disrupting students and communities and failing to deliver promised improvements. So our first legislative priority is reforming the Commission on Public School Employee Health Benefits. School boards support the goals of a cost effective system of education that works for students and taxpayers alike. And one of the most significant fiscal pressures facing Vermont school districts is sharp escalation of employee health care costs. Health benefits for public school employees now exceed 300,000,000 annually. And I believe we're actually getting up toward 400,000,000, and have grown significantly faster than inflation and state revenue. The most common plans premiums have more than doubled over recent years, rising approximately 125% from FY '18 to FY '25, while the consumer price index increased only 32% over the same time period.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Just pause it before you go on to a different topic or unless you're continuing on.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I'm still out more on this topic.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Okay. Healthcare costs are projected to comprise upwards of 20% of district budgets. If current trends continue, we're at, over 15% now and quickly headed toward 20%. These increases limit Ford's ability to invest in classroom instruction, student support, stability, and facility maintenance. So the VSBA urges the legislature to revise the structure and the function of the current commission on public school employee health benefits to include independent neutral members focused on solutions rather than adversarial negotiations. Capping the total value of health benefits with thoughtful phasing, requiring a single statewide HRA administrator to reduce unnecessary variation and cost, expanding the arbitration criteria to include comparability to Vermont Health Connect plans and the economic impact on education spending, and allowing for blended arbitration outcomes rather than winner takes all awards. These reforms will help bend the trajectory of health benefit cost growth and protect educational resources for students. They absolutely need to be part of the education transformation discussion. There is a bill that will be introduced soon that will provide detailed language on our proposed changes. And there was also a bill introduced in 2021 by Chair Conlon that is worthy of taking another look at as well. I was gonna move on to the next topic unless you

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Just a couple of questions. So yesterday we heard the Commission on the Future of Public Education report. The recommendation in that report is that healthcare benefits get re coupled either as part of a statewide teachers' contract or back to the local level. Does the SBA have a position on that?

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: We agree that they shouldn't be decoupled as they currently are. We don't have a position yet about which level they should be.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And just a broader question. Obviously, sponsored a bill in 'twenty one. I agree with what you're saying. Healthcare costs, however, have gotten so unbelievably burdensome that I almost feel like those changes almost just nibble at the edges because it's happening to everybody. It's not just the strategic realm. So that even at sort of the eightytwenty that we have set today, that 20% of premium cost is a huge number even for a teacher. And so I just find myself, as we think about how we deal with the burden of the cost of education, and there's just simply no question that healthcare is crushing that in many ways, but I don't think it's solvable, unless it's solvable at a national level. Because the taxpayers are gonna pick up the tab one way or the other, unless we just sort of say public school employees pay more, which I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it just seems that healthcare has reached such a level of crushing burden that even those proposals, which I think are sound, are nibbling at the edges of a problem that we almost can't solve from a robotic display, where we have the highest, other than what we can do that lowers the cost rate of the steak, because we have the highest cost steak. I don't know if I have a question or if I'm just editorializing, I just go, stop talking, see

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: to it. We need

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: to address it from many different angles.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: What I'm saying is that we keep talking about healthcare as a cost driver. We talk about other things as cost drivers, but this is one where it's like, yes, is. It's reality. It's a reality that we can't necessarily change. Yes, we are doing things like reference based pricing. We could alter the makeup of the negotiating groups, as you say. Oh my god, I've lost my editorial or question train of thought, except to just say, we keep limiting everything on healthcare, I don't even solve it at the state level.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I think there are things that you can do. There's a few things. Yeah, Yeah. And I think that they are suggestions. They are within your control. And if the bargaining process is changed, you could have a slightly different outcome that still provides high quality coverage for school employees, but does cost less. And I'm actually working on some scenarios to, show you some possibilities and some real numbers. But this is one thing that actually is very much within your control. Thank you. No, I was just saying, yeah,

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'm sorry.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: No, it's fine.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Education)]: Was going to give up on it anyway, because I think it was what you said. Healthcare is a driver. It's not in our purview to fix the entire healthcare system. And here are some specific, even though there are nibbles, but some specific things that are within purview, Vermont's purview that could be a start to reducing costs.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Love it. Mine is sort of a defeatist attitude. Like we can't do anything, let's just give up. I appreciate you.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Do that, it's something. I'll take something. So my next point is related. It's about stabilizing education costs and taxes. And the SBA supports targeted reforms to stabilize education costs by addressing major cost drivers, such as I just spoke about health benefits, facilities and unfunded mandates. We also recommend rigorous data driven modeling to demonstrate long term effects of proposed changes on districts, taxpayers and statewide property tax burdens. Third, ensure fair, transparent education funding. The purpose of the education fund should be reviewed to align its use with equitable access to high quality education. Vermont students deserve a system where the funding formula is transparent, predictable, and grounded in reliable cost and outcome data. Fourth is strengthening student mental health supports.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Transparent education funding that is sort of well defined. You feel that the foundation formula as described in Act 73 meets much of that criteria?

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I think a foundation formula in general does meet those criteria. The details definitely matter. What the base amount of funding is matters. And I think with the way that health insurance costs are growing, the inflator, the yearly inflator really matters as well. And we also don't have the data on how that formula would impact districts as they are currently designed. So I think that that would need to be looked at again, depending on what the district sizes are.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I mean, I think there's no question that the foundation formula is going to produce winners and losers.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: How do you navigate that within your organization? That is a very big challenge. You're right that it does have winners and losers. And I think that the legislature, it will be important for you to address that with some phasing. Which is included in that. Should Yes. I move on? Okay. The next is strengthening student mental health supports. Mental health needs continue to grow statewide. The SBA calls for full reliable funding of school based mental health services and youth support programs, recognizing that such investments reduce long term educational, social and economic costs. Fifth is maintaining and modernizing school facilities. Safe, healthy learning environments are essential. We support sustainable predictable funding for school renovation, construction, and necessary remediation, including environmental issues such as PCBs. Sixth is promote accountability for public dollars. When public funds support services or education outside of the traditional public education system, there must be clear standards for quality, equity, efficiency, accountability, and transparency. And last is supporting community based education. Local elementary schools serve as cornerstones of Vermont's communities. Policy decisions must preserve community voice and ownership, ensuring education systems remain responsive to local needs and contexts. And I will conclude by just saying that the VSBA stands ready to work collaboratively with you to advance education reforms that support students, respect communities, and sustain taxpayers. We ask the committee to embrace thoughtful and evidence based change and to ensure that local school boards have a meaningful voice in shaping the future of public education in Vermont. Thank you very much for your time and your leadership.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you, Sue, very much for your time and the presentation as well. Just wanted to open up to questions on any topic that we had just before us. Rob, go ahead. Could you just give me a couple of examples of unfunded mandates that you're talking about?

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: Just a quick. Yeah.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Oh, well, a huge unfunded mandate is the PCB mitigation program.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Yep, that's a very big one. But most of the time when the legislature passes a bill that requires schools to do something, there's an unfunded mandate within it.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Any other bubble up to the surface?

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: A smaller one is like last year, AED bill that was passed.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: This is the cardiac? Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Education)]: Literacy bill that we passed and then extended it past grade three to everybody through grade 12 needs to get intervention. It's a great idea, but there was no

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: There unfunded mandates that are the responsibility of school districts to pay for, such as curriculum improvements. Another example, and this predates me so I don't have to take any blame for it, but we passed something that said that all cleaning products green. To you know, turns out that's actually a little more complicated. More expensive. Because it's expensive, but also like there's a review process of every cleaner that's picking up resources of time. I've got a lot of emails about the HHB, would that be

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Education)]: Hazing harassment. I

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: mean, there's just, there's stuff that has to occur in schools that taxpayers have to pay for. Those are rule changes. Trying to corral that idea. Thank you. Here's some examples. I'm moving on from that because, gosh, they're there.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Education)]: But it is somewhat related. I'm going to make a statement, which is my takeaway from what I'm hearing from you, and then say yes, say no, and then expand

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: on it if you could.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Education)]: So my takeaway from what I'm hearing from you, and this isn't, know, there's plenty outside of this, but two specific things that I think sound like they're very important from the SBA perspective, and that is cost drivers, accurately analyzing cost drivers before final decisions are made, and then evidence based using data driven decision making. And that's sort of what I'm taking away from here. Those are really important to me, too. So I'm asking if that's what you think that is grounding much of what your priorities are. And could you expand on that if that is true?

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Yes, that is absolutely true. And it's something that we've heard from our members over and over in resolutions. We had a resolution a couple of years ago that prompted us to put together a group of school board members because it was a resolution looking at the effectiveness of our agency of education. And we put together that group, they issued a report which I submitted as, testimony last year. And one of the major takeaways from that report is the lack of data that school boards have in their decision making from the state. So I think that's sort of where the drive comes from to request that it be evidence based and based on data.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would sort of say, when is there sufficient data? Is there a certain point at which there's no more data to be collected because it doesn't exist? And is that going to be enough data? This is why I talked about kind of having a leap of faith as we move forward. I just think that I don't know how we get beyond, or if we can, maybe we just say, okay, don't do anything until everybody feels like they are comfortable with the amount of data that's there and available. I think there's one of we just have to simply wrestle with. That's sort of on us, not on you. But I think it's just a challenge for all of us to think about in terms of, okay, at what point do we say we still need to move ahead, we don't know exactly what is going to happen, here's what we think will happen. Then figure it out from there. I had another question, but it's gone out of my hand, so. Write stuff down.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: Are you looking to make a board decision on what your position is on the statewide contract? Are you looking for more information or are you taking a stance on neutrality?

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I think there will be a stance on that. It just hasn't been before. Okay.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Actually, one of the things that you brought up in the papers is the importance of having change not disrupt kids. Absolutely laudable. How do you think, let's say we move ahead with Act 73, create 20 new school districts, which is really kind of a governance and funding change, but right now at the kid level, where do you think that disruption, would look like?

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: It could manifest itself in a lot of different ways. It could be that that student's school closes. It could be that they have a different or a longer bus ride. It could be that their teacher changes or that their grade gets combined with another grade and there's one teacher teaching two grades. I think there are a lot of different ways that it could disrupt students. Could also

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Those examples you gave, aren't those more at a district level decision making, not at a state level decision making? State's not seventy three isn't closing any schools. It's not creating longer bus rides. That's the result decisions that might be made at a district level.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Yes. And those type of decisions are being made even right now by districts. But you were asking about how would it affect students. I think that it would be extremely disruptive to the system overall. So that's something that we have to consider and plan for and make sure that there are resources to support any kind of transition, there are costs associated with merger that we would have to contend with. I

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: think we saw on ad 46 that just the leveling up of salaries is probably one of the biggest things we need to be aware of.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: With your sort of statement that Act 73 doesn't say anything about closing schools, I guess I'm really confused about that because it seems to me, and that's the district decision, that pretty much the primary purpose for Act 73 is to, I mean, maybe people disagree this is the primary purpose, but one of the consequences is that it forces districts to make that decision on their own. If they don't, governor and the secretary of Ed will do it for them. So we keep saying that, but there's nothing about closing schools in Act 73, but the entire thing seems to be about closing rules or at least starting that process.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I guess, mean, make that more specific. How do you see that?

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: Like what the minimum class size is, if you don't miss minimum class size over an average of three years, then we will put you on a plan of correction and you still can't It make says May, but it's, I mean, I feel like we're wordsmithing this to sell it and say that that's not there when it really is there. And it is going to lead to closure

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: of our

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: rural schools, our small

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: district.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I guess I would just ask the question, is the law, those class size minimums that are with the law doing it or is it declining enrollment that would be causing that school to close? And I realize that you are completely linked, but there's a certain point at which it's not an educationally sound school. And again, we're not deciding yet, that's for a district to decide or for a district to come up with new configurations so that this school is k to three and this school is three to six, four to six.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: But if Act 73 had been passed, districts wouldn't necessarily be forced to decide that or have it imposed on.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Oh, think it's going on right now.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: It's happening now. It's happening in my district.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Education)]: And it's happening in a I don't wanna editorialize.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: Yeah. Right now that's the district decision versus the state sort of saying, if you don't decide this, the plan is in place, it's eventually gonna be open anyway.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I agree. Yes.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: I don't know what my question is.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Any other questions? Again, we'll have Sue as part of the joint meeting tomorrow. All right, we'll Thank you. Thanks very much. I think what you see here is us wrestling with the same questions you're wrestling with. And so we apologize for our own cross discussion, that's what's going to move us forward.

[Sue Seglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Yes, there aren't any simple answers. Thank

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: you very much.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Education)]: No, if

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: there were simple answers, it would have been perfect.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Matt, would you please give us an update as to what we are doing next? Okay, and then after lunch? After the joint hearing.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: Gonna Yeah.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Set an education free district dashboard.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Education)]: That's downstairs, right? Room 11. Room 11. One Room 11 is our next commitment,

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: if I understand that correctly?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Task force. Tomorrow. We got a fair bit of time for those of you who need to refresh it because I know you've all read it read it once. Maybe if you got

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Education)]: The task force report? Yeah. I should skim. It's been published.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: There's gonna be a lot of discussion about appendix d. Yes. It's