Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Welcome back to House Education on January 21. We're just gonna take some time in the committee to kinda check-in, talk about act 73 steps moving forward. So just, you know. I'll just sort of tell everybody kind of my own, all in a very hard situation. Is an incredibly hard topic in that we have both a local perspective of the people and districts and all that we represent. And we're also here. To make decisions on behalf of the entire state, I think it's putting many of us it's putting all of us because we all are affected one way or the other in difficult, difficult position. And I just want to recognize that we all have that. For example, the current foundation formula as proposed probably would hurt my the main school district I represent pretty significantly. For others, the fear that a sort of board that is more remote from the communities it represents could lead to decisions that affect small communities that don't have the same level of representation. So I just wanted to know, this is all but at the same time, we all know the larger statewide factors of the cost of education in Vermont. I put these numbers up here for everybody to just have for comparison sake with no comment whether the numbers are big or little, but just to sort of understand where we're at. And if you're looking at, for example, the agency of education puts out there per pupil spending for all of the school districts in the state. And here we want to sort of compare where you fall with that, there are the numbers to use. And then of course, bottom row just to get a sense of where we're at in terms of enrollment. So, think we're going just do a little roundtable today to go around and get people's thoughts. Representative Brady and I were talking earlier today about what might be a good prompt for all of us to sort of think about. Those of you who are teachers are much better at this than I am. But I can't quite remember what the prompt exactly was.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: There's a lot in Act 73. There's a lot in the task force report. There's a lot swirling around. What do you think the one to three most pressing next steps are and why? Whether they're what's already in activity three or what's in the test press report or other pieces. But what one to three specific steps do you think are facing us this session?

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, that's a big one.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It's a big one. And you can do one and you don't do three, but I think it'd be good to you. I don't know if anybody feels like they have the capacity to go first. Shall we start off with just one and then maybe we'll go around? I'll start off. To me, I think that we

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: have to go less districts. Go bigger districts, less districts. I think that's a must. And we need to really decide on that voluntaryinvoluntary point, and I can state that my belief right now, as we sit here, that I don't believe it should be involuntary. It should not be? I think those are just big decision points we have to make very soon.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So just to add, just to put a little more flesh on it, so that means it's a sort of it's a way we have a no go go, no go on maps. Okay. I don't think you have moved it necessarily involuntary or, let's call it, mandated districts without saying what those are gonna be. This is open to you all on the screen as well. Put your hand up if you'd like to jump in. Emily? I'm

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: happy to

[Emily Long (Member)]: share a thought. This is a thought process, so there's lots of other things that will pop into my head. But just off the top of my head, I want to acknowledge and recognize that Act 73, the impetus behind Act 73 from the very beginning that we've been in for the last year and a half has been to curb spending and lower property taxes. That's my perception. I think most people would agree with that, and most of my constituents agree with that. I'm not trying to minimize all the other reasons, because as you all know, I've been working on this for thirty some odd years, trying to improve our education delivery system. And that has not gone off the table. So for me, I need to know that the steps we are taking are going to do those two things, which is improve the opportunities and outcomes for our students equitably across the state, and that they will lower property taxes by steps we take will lower property taxes, whether it's immediately over time, so that promoters can afford the education we're providing. And I continue to have great concerns about making significant change in our education system that will cause a lot of disruption and still not get the results of either of those things, those questions are not answered from me. So do no harm, always

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: rises to the top. Can I ask a clarifying question? Yeah.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Are you able to do that? With lower taxes or stabilized tax?

[Emily Long (Member)]: My first opening statement, which is my statement, not anyone else's, was that I think the drive to do this work in the most recent steps, I'm really limiting it to this last year and a half, has been to lower crop intensities. So much is contained in that conversation.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Now we're not trying

[Emily Long (Member)]: to call you out, are there any No. No. Don't think can see the legitimate question. I don't think all that at all.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you. Representative McCann, since you got your hand up and have volunteered, please.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Sure. I'm just gonna list three things that come to mind since three was the prompt. I lean towards school districts over supervisory unions. I lean towards mandatory seesaws rather than mandatory districts. And I'd like us to look at where we have school deserts and think about how we can move from some having some non operating districts to making sure that all districts are operating.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you, Kate. Beth, you also have your hand up, so we'll take advantage of that.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Thank you. My first instinct when I heard the prompt was very similar to what rep Taylor had to say. That looking at fewer districts and supervisory union slash districts, whatever it ends up being to streamline the process and looking at it statewide again, as opposed to voluntary across the board because deserts that idea of having deserts created or towns left out when the voluntary pieces started. We don't look at it as a statewide whole. That's where I'm at.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Go no go on maps.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Chittenden, I just make sure I heard you correctly? What you're saying is, the fewer districts probably should be mandated as part of a statewide strategic vision as opposed to voluntary, which may or may not meet that?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I certainly would love

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: to have, and think it's most important to have community input, boots on the ground people, but have to really look and say, is somebody being really left out of this and creating an orphan? So we say, we have to make sure that's taken care of.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you. Leland, how are you feeling? I feel that mandatory, it's probably a mandatory districting as opposed to volunteering. Because I think when you do it on a volunteer basis, I don't I don't think that would work. And as far as lowering taxes, my my major concern would be more in stabilizing and hoping that in the future that it would reduce.

[Leland Morgan (Member)]: But at this point, I think the stabilization is most important. Not all I would have to say it this year. Leanne Harple, are ready?

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Yeah, I mean, I guess that I'm sort of with Emily is that I am not convinced yet that mandatory redistricting is going to get us the costs that we need. I'm not sure how that should be calculated to show that's extinction. I think that I would like to look at the seesaws, which also in this plan are not voluntary, they're mandatory. And so I think that maybe framing what are we mandating the towns do going in that direction or going to read this sort of thing. So I guess I'd like to collect the data to really compare which one of his plans would actually be more effective, not only in the cost city names for this year and the next few years, but I think that we also really need to carefully consider what it looks like in the next few decades.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: And I know we don't have

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: a crystal ball, but we should be able to sort of at least have a discussion around what happens when we start to do this to our most rural areas. Like, is it going to lead to growth or is it going to lead to an even scarcer, deserted population?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I don't know who to ask, if can answer that question.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: First of all, I'm not sure you can get a satisfactory answer.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: I think it's really important. I don't think that we should shoot first and ask questions later.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Before you go on to someone else, can I clarify just something? Yes. Is absolutely Beth, and I appreciate you mentioning me. I did not mention a word about mandatory or not. That wasn't her fine. And I don't want anyone to assume that that was what I was saying. I, long as I That is a next step, compensation. Because I've gone through the process both voluntary and watched the process happen when it was mandatory. Yet know whether in the timeframe that we have, whether we can do voluntary, because voluntary requires a lot of work with our communities, and including our communities and the voice. And if I can clarify just one more thing. When we talk about closing schools that are happening right now, this has been nagging at the back of my head. We hear this statement from us in this room and from the secretary and the agency of education and from the field that we don't want to continue to have small schools close in crisis. And I really want to push back on that. And saying demographics are causing it, but it's a longer process and it feels very emotional to our communities. But it is from a demographic reason and the time that I have witnessed in my region of schools closing, the conversations in those communities have been incredibly helpful. And I don't really, it may feel like in the beginning that it's from crisis, but in the end, the final decisions, when this decision is to either open or close school, come from a community conversation. And I will use the town of Marlborough as a great example for it. They've gone community meeting after community meeting after community meeting that I was asked to attend and I did attend. And they went from one end of the spectrum thinking about every single option, and now they are at a point of where they're putting it on their warrant. But it feels like crisis because of the emotion, but the process has been incredibly helpful and healing in some ways to them because the conversation was right. It was focused on kids. Thoughts. There's some pause.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: When I said I appeared with Emily, I meant about a data collection.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I knew exactly what you meant, honestly. I really didn't. But I just wanted to clarify,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: please. Thank you. Rob, how are feeling?

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: Thinking about, I'm just kind of looking at my notes from a lot of the superintendents and kind of thinking about the stuff I've been kind of rolling over my head. Like the question I asked Rebecca yesterday about, you know, about if we if we do new SDs that will create new new districts, can they also be a hybrid and include seesaws? Right? Like, they should. I mean, if we're saying I mean but I'm also admired in the fact that, well, to get a seesaw up and running, you need some staffing. You know? I mean, so, you know, there there is something to what's always understood about another level of bureaucracy. On the other hand, if it can be made to work, I think that that's important. I think that there should just be elements of new districts as we go in. So think that I'm dipping my toes in that water. They repeated a lot of different things that each of them said, be careful of timeline, all SDs, no SUs, and strategic mergers versus voluntary. And so you know, I am thinking that we need to move forward. I am sensitive to all of the things that have been said, the emotional issues that go with with talent and people having a voice as they go forward.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I also feel a little trapped.

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: As I probably said the other day, everything that Rebecca says makes sense, but on the other hand, we have a mandate in front of us. We have rising taxes. We have workability issues. I just think, well, then maybe we need to move forward and continue this play. But being smart, you know, and not just saying poof, you know, by regions. I mean, you know, this this is a quote, strategic mergers and considering our regions, considering the small by necessity, all of those things. And, you know, maybe Hooper wasn't far off, you know, maybe maybe we do all have imaginations. Maybe we do need to bring this stuff. So at least when we walk away in May, if we've done something, at least it was us. It is nice to be able to point to a commission and say, Well, I did what I could, they kind of did the work, and one of those things. So I mean, I'm in favor of rolling up sleeves, and I know it's hard. I don't know what I said.

[Emily Long (Member)]: It sounded good though.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I heard a lot of both sides and Josh, you want to go next?

[Emily Long (Member)]: You are muted. The

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: way you guys like it anyways. I'd like to start with ensuring that a foundation formula is in place at the end of all this. I think that, at the very least, that is a way to help stabilize everything financially. How that hashes out is another story, and I know that we don't set the foundation for it, but trying to find a way to ensure that that is at least something that comes out of all this. Less districtsSUs, I do think that there is a place for a hybrid model that has both, especially when it comes to our more rural communities, supporting the independent schools that have been supporting the education system for more years than I've been alive.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: And

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: there's a governance model that I think works within there. And then also, I moved here to be part of a small community that had local control, but as I've gone through many different merger conversations, and we are trying currently within the district and I see that I'm working in to figure things out, it's hard. And sometimes I think the hand has to be forced as much as there are some in my community who wouldn't like that. So I do think some kind of mandate that really contemplates our more rural and smaller communities, which is why I like the hybrid SUSD models.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But fewer of them.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Yes. Yes, absolutely. I think I said, I thought I said that, but if I didn't, yes, less of them.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Okay, yeah.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Great. I'm gonna go next.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I bet you went in the beginning and said, This is hard, blah, blah.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Blah.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: I'll add to your notes, keep going. I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: had the benefit of hearing all of you, and it sort of keeps delivering my mind, know, put over three. You know, I think probably for me, we need to move from the system that we have right now. I think in 2024, we saw what the future may hold is a couple of things. One, lost more school budget projections, which I think have all of the same negative connotations that people bring up about having larger school, larger districts. It's part of the people. I think school budget rejections are probably way harder and way worse. And I think that that's the system that we have. And I think in the I worry that in the absence of us making some structural change, we're going to hear more things like let's have an allowable growth formula of 3% or let's put in a three year moratorium on property taxes not increasing. I think as we all know, these don't take into account the real cost of education. I think a foundation formula does. I worry that if we don't move in the direction of fewer districts and a foundation formula, we're going to continue to have the really stark inequity that we have today where kids can live a half a mile apart from one another, but they have completely different high school experiences or elementary school experiences. So those are two things that I worry about and why I do feel we need to move to more districts. And it's really easy to say that because I've not yet put my mind in the process of actually creating and how many and all of that. I also sort of think about the advantages of sort of starting from scratch with new districts of various problems or features that we could, won't say problems that we could solve, but in my mind, they are. We have got articles of agreement, for example, that are out there that I think in many cases are inhibiting school districts to make smart decisions in their planning. Sort of get a test of that in February when the Washington Central District has votes in two towns about whether their schools should close or not. Because I think that, you know, it's called that these words are not necessarily based on what the kids get or don't get. That I've been on a bigger level, when I think of creating, I'm definitely a fan of eliminating SUs as a part of the system. It's just another layer of paperwork and all that. But I think about, okay, we have got this tuition that causes lots of consternation with everybody. It's causing lawsuits. And that we move to actually the same system that Maine has moved to, which is to say there are no non operating districts, but that a school board has the role responsibility of making sure every child has a school to go to. And in the absence of a public school, they should have the ability, as we've been doing with the historic academies for two hundred years, to contract with an independent school. We have to put lots of, you know, what is a reasonably accessible public school? You probably will need to define how is that miles, bus time. So everything I bring up just brings up more and more layers of complication. But for me, it's an opportunity to sort of start afresh, solve a lot of things that have been getting away from us, inequity, sort of, tuitioning choice, we put some curves on it. But I think that if we go back to the sort of reason why the historic cabinet is to provide for the education of students where there is no other option. And that the role of school board is to make sure that all children have a school available to go to. That of helps out a lot there. You know, I guess we keep talking about it's gonna lower property taxes, and I want data to show it. Don't even the governor has said, it's not about cutting costs. It's about controlling costs. So I don't think we're gonna get any guarantees. And and here's where I struggle and I hear everybody asking for data and I I can't deny that it's the way we should progress, but at what point do you have enough data and what do we do when the data doesn't exist? Do we go forward? That's where I'm at.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Clarifying question? Do you have a nice self to go?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: You know, I'm hand it over to you.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: It's more of a response to something you just said that I can hold off if it's not time to respond.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, let's keep going around the table here. Okay.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Okay, my turn. So I was making notes while everyone was talking. So what I wrote down as a first level thing, I think, particularly in light of what we heard yesterday, is moving to operationalize mandatory CISAs statewide as a first step would be at the top of my list. Think after hearing the conversation, I think maybe this sounds like a little too divorced from actual practice in reality, but I think that that concept offers us a really important opportunity to test some of the assumptions that we think we're going to achieve with bigger consolidated districts. And I definitely hear and appreciate the point that we can't have the entire universe of data and we can't run every model to determine what's going to achieve efficiency, what's going to save money. I appreciate that we can't do all of that work before we move forward with anything, but I feel like this is a real world opportunity to see how those things would work in a way that is flexible and doesn't come without all the legal entanglements around the costs and legalities of district mergers. So I think that's where I'm focusing a lot of my thoughts at the moment. I think it offers us an interesting opportunity where there's definitely a lot of push towards action, which we can all appreciate for a variety of reasons. But where it makes me nervous is action versus recklessness. And I think this offers kind of a unique and flexible way to sort of test out some of those assumptions to see, are we moving in the right direction? What can we achieve together? And I sort of think if we can't regionalize services in a way that's sort of efficient and improving outcomes and hopefully saving money in this kind of a flexible model, I'm not really sure why we think we would be able to do all those things with new mandatory districts. And the second big thing on my list would be really looking at how we're supporting the implementation of Act 173. I think Representative Fulcrum talked about that yesterday. I had some really interesting conversations over the summer with folks that feel like a huge part of the cost crisis that we're in right now is based on the failed implementation of 173. Representative Holcomb was talking about how we're an outlier in terms of identifying students out of district placements. I think really looking at that system could have a lot of pretty immediate benefits. And do I get a third? Yep. This is the

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Rich, talk as long as you like.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Going back to something that Jay Nichols was saying, and this committee has talked about a lot, how we use the education fund and what revenue streams we put into it. I know a lot of committees are having various pieces of that conversation, but I think there's work we could do there. Or maybe not us, but in collaboration with perhaps the money committees. I do agree with the chair around starting to make some difficult choices around our tuitioning system and making it about access, not choice as sort of a standalone educational good of some sort, which is not what it was ever designed to be.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: That's it.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I'll give quick my three action steps and then a little bit of editorial on them. I think we need fewer schools. I know that's a hard thing to say, but for our public health. We need all districts to be operating. And we need to, I would echo that, we need to resolve the governance so that we have one structure and all districts are operating. And that does not mean that all Certainly, the academies would play a role and are still going to be the high school in those areas, a contracting or designation system. It was abundantly clear. I watched every single task force meeting how much that issue compounds decisions and challenges in many, many, many, many of our smallest districts. So those would be my three. And I will say pretty unequivocally, if we end up in some place with maps this year, I absolutely cannot support if continue the SU structure or we continue choice as policy decisions. That to me is a Those are Poison Fells, fun maps. Went back to It's new people sitting around this table. But in 2024, when all the budgets failed, and we've been building up to that, but this committee literally took hundreds of hours of testimony from the field, from probably half the legislature in listening sessions. And I just went back and pulled out. I even had AI run some sort of quick, what are the key points? And in 2024, particularly from superintendents, the high level things that came up again and again, the challenges of our system, are the number of buildings that we operate with compounded and huge facility needs, and that drives personnel decisions and costs. The more schools you run, the more overhead you have. And this is superintendent's words. I don't even know which one from men or AI is combining it all. But we have a foot in the past and a foot in the future. And we're not going be able to afford to do both. And in that same testimony, all of this came up again, of course, last year when we kept saying solutions, solutions, solutions. The things that rose to the top the most frequently were the funding for our mental health system, regional collaboratives, so that lends me towards being very interested in seesaws, and consolidating particularly middle and high schools. And that a high school should generally be at least 600 to 900 students. This is pulling from their recommendations two years ago. So when I think about all the stuff on the table, either in I-seventy 3, in the task force report, to me, Most of it's really hard stuff and not fun and not things you could go out and be like, hey, community, I got great news for you. This is really hard, hard change for communities, for our state. I think that regional middle and high schools are the only kind of positive thing in the package. And so I guess to me, I should have I have before. It's construction money. Facilities money. We cannot get there without some investment. And we're already long, long, long overdue on deferred maintenance. But it doesn't mean we're going to have 15 giant new high schools. But there's no way to get to regional middle and high schools without some facilities funding to reconfigure some buildings to make them more comprehensive. And so I'm very concerned about us spending lots of money on consolidating a lot of paperwork stuff in districts without ever actually putting money into any physical structures that need consolidation. And we don't really know the cost of consolidation. I'm worried I'd rather spend our money on the middle and high schools and physical buildings that are going to put more kids together, which I genuinely believe, and I think research will say increases opportunity, more than necessarily district configuration just automatically would create it. I think we're stuck of ducking everyone. Us, the governor, everyone of how small is too small, where is too small, the small issue. I think we're, in essence, renting it to new districts because everybody's avoiding bell harvest decision probably in all of this.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Great. Going back and reviewing the 24 testimony was really helpful. Can pull up our,

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: we did like round the table, who said what, I can pull up everybody.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think we're at the point where probably we should put some concepts on the table to discuss, perhaps starting off with some easy ones, just to sort of get behind things. So, I'm going to throw one out there, just to sort of put it out there for debate. I would say if we were to go to fewer districts, for me, that would be contingent on having construction funding available. Proposed, here's the school construction program, which is ready to roll. It just needs $6,000,000,000 But for me, that's a bit of a contingency. It doesn't mean that every district gets the money. It just means that we at least are acknowledging that to really kind of achieve the goals that representative Brady just laid out that we're talking about in '24, we got some building money.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: And I don't think we have to have 6,000,000,000. I know that's the point say, but in order to keep ourselves from completely spitting out of this here, Any money can help, especially with bonding and perhaps some different statewide bonding strategies and visions. We're hearing from people that I find hopeful.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Is this something that you

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: could go to the governor with and say, look, we're ready to move forward here,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: but it has to be

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: in conjunction with this. This has to happen to make this happen. Sure, and could you just get your feet together and figure out how to create this?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, I think the challenge with all these things we always have to get granular. So like, much is enough to say we have funded the school construction? 100,000,000 a year.

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: A 100,000,000 a year, you know. That's a big number. Well, it's lower than 6,000,000,000. Yes.

[Emily Long (Member)]: But it's Exactly. I I think there is

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: you know, when we first talked about that, I think there is some sort of you know, we could could, guess, help with the bond bank that would say, if you seeded it with this much, it would leverage this much. Right. And at some point, we'll have to make a number. At some point, we have to make decisions. That's our job in this case. And for our job. The other thing I just want to make everybody aware of, because it's important, is that we are essentially at the timeline for bigger districts and creating voting boards if the legislature is to do all of that work itself at this session. To me, we aren't going make that deadline. So if we are to go to mandated larger districts, it then would mean setting up a commission that then comes back with the voting words all laid out in a bill form and they get voted out immediately so that the next legislative session approves it and the Secretary of State can do their work to make it all happen. That is the way to stick to the current schedule laid out in Act 73. It doesn't mean that that schedule can't be adjusted, but the election side of things gets complicated when we start moving away from, but the idea was to get on a November every other year schedule, even number tier schedule.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: As the bill exists now, it was school board elections in '27, right?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: November 27, special election.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Right, and then try to transition to an even year schedule in the future? Yeah.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It is all laid out. Do you want to throw out some thoughts? I'm not completely ready to say contingent on structural money, but I

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: definitely think we need to focus on how we can fund construction. I think it needs to be a part of

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: the conversation the whole way through.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Doesn't mean I won't get to that point of being contingent on construction money either. I just see it as such a big factor in the whole scheme of things.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We could do nothing, but there's certainly no question we need school construction money. Regardless. Yeah. Josh, go ahead.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: So I'm with Chris. I don't know that I'm ready to jump into contingent on construction money. I mean, could get there. Some of my concerns are, you know, where do we get those funds from when we're already trying to stabilize everything? Like, does that money come from? What taxes, what fund, etcetera? And is there a way we can and again, this is an unknown until we see savings, if there are gonna be any. How can that funding, if we do go with something that has to be set up for construction aid, how can that be, funded through any, potential longitudinal savings that we will see from whatever we do, right? If we go that route, can we make it where, I mean, we may not have $6,000,000,000 to put in there now, but we might see this savings over the years and the cost of education and that be flooded back into a construction fund that grows as the savings are realized. Again, don't know if there will be any savings necessarily. It just might be a stabilization, but just that kind of thought looking at the funding.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, guess I don't think there's any way to fund school construction at even the most minimal level without there being a, frankly, an appropriation for it, regardless of who's saving what dollars. And then we are competing for everything just like everybody else. You might say we want $20,000,000 a year. Meanwhile, we've got people sleeping outside in the middle of winter. That's the stuff we're making to deal with as a legislature at much higher level.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So that would not be us. It would be ways of means

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: that would It would be an appropriate It would be an appropriation. But I think we heard testimony the other day from Chris Root with JFO saying his belief, I've always said, oh, hey, sports betting, let's take all that money and put it toward school construction, assuming it was going to solve the problem. Of course, it's yielded $6,000,000 a year. And what his point of view is, if it is a priority of the state, it should be allocated in the budget proposal every year, Period. Then it is something that the governor should put in his budget. Dedicated revenues. No. He's just saying, I mean, like, yeah, you pay for it. If it's a priority, then you pay for it. Please talk.

[Emily Long (Member)]: All

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: right, well, since we keep Since we keep talking about districts, I'll just say all the uncomfortable things here this morning. When you look at the task force report, we have 118 districts in the state. 73 of them have an average daily membership under 500 students. I obviously represent Williston and CBSD, and that is what I'm set here to do. So I have to do that. It's challenging for me to see our inability to do some more strategic decisions. And instead of sweeping, everybody has to change because that's the only way you can do hard things. CVSD may need to merge in time. 4,000 is huge by Vermont standards, but certainly not huge, obviously, by any other standard. But is there a benefit to under the map we saw last week from the secretary? What do you gain if CVSD and South Burlington have to merge? What will all the costs be in merging those two? And And what's really gained versus merging a lot of districts that are well under 500 students or districts that are not operating and may be sending So I find this a very difficult, awkward position to sit in and say, who's to say someday there might be If South Burlington and CVST combined is not to close schools, maybe someday it will be. But right now, enrollment is steady in South Burlington. They're falling out of the buildings and they're in trailers because they're overcrowded. So that's not the issue there. I'm not saying this doesn't affect all of us, but I guess I want to own this is a really hard thing to sit in a big suburban district and represent them and look to the state interests and think about how we balance it. And in total shameless defense of myself, say that we debated and we took on some significant education legislation when I very first just got here four years ago in the weighting study and completely adjusting our weights and how we fund education. And I knew full well it would be, it was not what was good for my district in terms of money. It was a huge loss in tax capacity. We've lost 85 positions in two years. It has led to big cuts. But the principle that some kids are more expensive to educate and come to school with far more challenges, I absolutely understand from a visceral human level and educator level. And I acknowledge there is higher wealth on average in CVSD than in other communities. And that was the right thing to do statewide, even though it was a really hard thing. And will continue to be a hard thing and will impact now the things that go into the foundation formula. But I think we are also facing a challenging dynamic here when we look at mostly Chittenden County. We don't have SUs. They're operating. We have several large ish districts that merged under Act 46. My district, Jana's District, and the Essex District. One thing I heard when I

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: went to some of the

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: task force open meetings was people saying, if you voluntarily merged under Act 46, and that work took a while, it was cumbersome. It's been good for our district. It saved a little bit, but it's been definitely good operationally. Then you don't start there and make them start all over again. You at least take some of the big Act 46 mergers and leave those places intact. And so in a representative of Willis and CBSD, I have to say I see some merit to that. So that is why I'm a little concerned when we talk about only being able to deal with. I think we do have really big issues about how we operate positioning and other things. But I'm not entirely convinced the only way to take those on is to say we do everything all at once. I can see the simplicity of that thinking. I'm not sure that simplicity bears out in reality in the field, the idea of starting fresh. We don't really get to start fresh because the schools are already all there and we're going to have to operate every minute of the day through all of this. That helps nothing, but that's my equatorial reality and big bad Northwest Vermont.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So I would just maybe continue along the line. We are talking about sort of, frankly, our lane, but the foundation formula is another thing that will be similar to waiting in districts more frankly like mine that are high spenders. I continue to come back to the issue of equity. I mean, I frankly have come around to the idea that our current system is in violation of Brigham because we have just got disparate spending on students across the state based on districts' either ability to pay or willingness to pay for education. But moving to it, so therefore I believe in moving to a foundation formula. I think it's better for the ability to plan long term. But I also support that knowing full well, my district is, let's see, we have a long term weighted, it's 13.9, I think we're 17 or something. So it's gonna be a painful transition, depending on the profile of our students. So, you know, we are all stuck in this position of sort of protecting our turf and doing what's right for the state as a whole. And I realize that defining what's right is also a hard discussion as well. And we then, Jana Just

[Emily Long (Member)]: quickly on two things pop into my head. First, my district also, just for clarity, we all talk about our regions and we should be doing that. We should be focusing on the constituents we represent. But I have the same sort of situation, just on a different scale than representative Brady was just talking about. My district did merge when others around me didn't. So we went from multiple small towns and a regional union high school to a K-twelve district. And that was voluntary, it was a lot of work and discussion to get to that point. Is it right now? No. I mean, of this is right now. I want to just talk for one sec though about the foundation formula and this isn't a judgment of the foundation formula. It is my perception of it as time has gone on and the work that we've been engaged in over the last year. You mentioned about allowable growth and I have a ton of background with allowable growth as you do too, Peter, but I have been trying to help my constituents understand the difference in philosophy that this funding formula really is. And it is hard for folks to grasp. And it means one heck of a lot more toward allowable growth or a cap on spending than the current system is now. And I say that because I want to be very realistic because we are currently in general, and I'm talking in the concept, we now budget locally to our student needs. That's what we do. And in fact, I for years have gone to the superintendent and said, develop a draft budget for the board that meets student needs, and then they'll be usually have a parameter around that. But that isn't how we'll be budgeting from. In the future, under a foundation formula, it literally is we'll have dollars and we will have to budget to those dollars. And I just want to make sure that we're acknowledging that there's a gap that we will have to face. It is weighted and it is thoughtful and it is different than the foundation formula that we had in the past, but it is a different way of thinking. And I say all that because it drives much of my thought around how we govern them. Because now we have a new philosophy of funding, so now we have to think of a new philosophy on governing. And I know that conversation has shifted recently, especially this year, from lowering property tax rates, which was going to again say that was what I heard over and over and over again. And it's still a period over and over again. We are going through this exercise to lower property tax rates because people cannot afford to stay in their homes. I think that's a generally accepted perception for most Vermonters. And we talked about that a lot. We've now gone to saying that we're spending the cost curve and it may not save money. And I think that's a fair assumption as well. But the goals should have always been on how do we deliver the best education we can for our kids. And that should be our goal behind any future steps that we take. So I just want to keep all that in mind as I'm supporting. I mean, we've gone around the table here and I agreed with something that everyone, what everyone said. So I actually think that we're in a pretty good place to make some good steps. I guess a question I would have is something that you brought up about time. And are we willing to take some thoughtful steps on adjusting timelines where necessary to make sure we're doing the right thing? Then one last thing, and then we'll stop. I think you're the one who brought it up, Representative Brown, well, others did too, shared services. I am much less worried about the duplication of levels of governance than some people are. I guess it's because maybe I'm already in one and I'm already seeing benefits or hearing benefits from those who are in the field. And I think that we absolutely need, regardless of, it's sort of a layer above, regardless of how we move forward with consolidation. I think it's critically important that we consider and even mandate. I don't know what it looked like, but mandate.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Guys, two things in response. One, the things you said about budgeting and all that were great preview for our testimony at 01:15. Remember those thoughts. But two, I'm not trying to be a spokesperson for the agency or the governor or anything, but I think the Secretary of Education would sit there and say, this is also about student outcomes. It's about everything. But sometimes we focus on one area, then we move on to focus to other areas. Is that

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: a handle? Yes, I respectfully disagree. I think that the only thing in it that is about improving quality and outcomes for kids is the potential for regional middle and high schools because of increased opportunity. Otherwise, the way you improve education and educational outcomes is teacher quality. That is what matters for, and we don't have a strategic vision for it. We didn't follow through on Act 173 on it. I read that as a teacher and was like, Oh my God, yes, we need this. I need this. I need to better know how to educate kids who come into my class in high school and can't read or have X, Y, and Z needs. And I haven't received much of that training, but I don't think that this is about quality other than what is already gained in putting more students together, where there appears to be much more research about that. Obvious, and there's obvious reasons at the middle and high school level. You can offer more. You have a more variety of perspectives and kids, and then you have more offerings. And so I think that the biggest quality for kids part of all of this is regional middle, and high schools. I am frustrated to hear the rhetoric around improving outcomes because I don't think that happens, matter how big or small your school is, without a lot more vision, leadership, and investment in teacher quality.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Yeah, just to follow-up on that, I've been thinking about that as well, too. I think when we talk about what's this all about, that conversation has strategically shifted depending on who's speaking over time. And so I think we all sort of know how this started. And I feel like, yes, we can say it's about educational opportunities for kids, but until we really dig into that conversation and talk about what it actually means in practice for kids, I think it's just messaging at this point.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I will restate my position that equitable funding is about providing opportunity for kids. And right now, we just don't have that. You know, bunch of what we do here is allocating money in the best strategic way possible. So sometimes it is all about the money and how it's distributed. But we can have a

[Emily Long (Member)]: political fund and still not have an ethical basis. Okay.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Alright. Well, great for lunch, and we will continue this discussion at two or so.