Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Welcome to House Education. This is January 27. Today, we're gonna start what it will hopefully be a regular visit from the leadership at the State Board of Education. The idea being kind of keeping an eye on what they're up to at their level, how it might sort of reflect back on what we need to be doing, and just to sort of get an idea where both are at. And I'll just say, we're gonna have them in generally the day after they hold their monthly meeting. Meanwhile, the state board has also created a sort of legislative committee that they invite me to as well to talk about what we are up to. So hopefully keep those close connections during the session. Anyway, welcome to you both. The floor is yours.

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: Hi, good afternoon, everyone. Jennifer Deck Samuelson, Chair of the State Board of Ed.

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: Good afternoon, everyone. Nice to see you again. Tammy Colby, Vice Chair of State Board of Ed.

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: So, and Tammy and I don't have anything prepared for you. We figured that this would just be an open conversation. And when representative Conlon had first suggested this idea of a regular check-in, It seems like a great idea because, as you guys are well aware, State Board of Ed is basically a volunteer organization. And so this seemed like a good way to keep us in the loop and what's you know, apprised of what's going on with during the legislative session. Because otherwise, it's kind of hard for us to know what's going on unless someone tells us. So this seemed like a good sort of regular check-in opportunity. So I thought that was a great idea. And thank you, representative Conlon, for suggesting that. The other thing too that I had mentioned, which I'll just throw out to the whole committee, is state board of Ed meets the third Wednesday of every month. And so I thought it would be helpful, first of all, to schedule our meetings with House Ed after that meeting so that we can report back on anything that the state board has done that might be of interest to this committee. But also to allow you guys, if you have questions that are coming up that you would like some input specifically from the state board of ed, if you let us know prior to the third Wednesday of the month, then it's really easy for me to add something to the agenda and have a conversation with the full board and then be able to report back to you. It's happened in the past where sometimes, like, I've been asked to testify on something that has not been discussed with the State Board of Ed, which really leaves me in two positions either I can basically say, haven't had a chance to talk about it. This is what I personally might think It'd be very clear about that or more in a special meeting of the full state board of ed so that we can provide you with the board's position on an issue, which I think would be really, really helpful. So just wanna put that out there, but thank you all.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think what might be helpful is an update concerning, we appropriated a bunch of money for you all to start moving down the path of weeding through all of your responsibilities and all of the things you need to sort of catch up on or clean up on. Maybe an update on how that process is moving along.

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: Sure. And actually, maybe next time we come, I can have Sarah Buxton join us because I think that would be really helpful just so that the committee has a better understanding of where she is in the process. I do know that so let me back up. The general assembly appropriated, I believe, the sum of $200,000 to the State Board of Ed both to provide support to the board, when legal services are needed to support us with our rulemaking, but also to really go through this review of, our rules, many of which have not been updated for well over a decade. So, you know, we received those funds and in fact, we still had some money left over from last year's budget that I was able to fold into that amount for legal counsel. We did advertise the position, and ultimately selected Sarah Buxton, with whom I'm sure many of you are familiar. She's helped the board in the past. Most recently, she helped us update both EQS rule series 2,000 as well as our independent school approval rules, which is rule series 2,200. She had also been, I believe, a house ad committee member a decade ago. So she she comes at it, with a good understanding and was really able to jump in and help the board. So we've asked her to help us with this. I do know that she's going through, the rule series and is preparing something to be discussed with the board, but we've not yet had that discussion because I think she's still going through her review and formulating her recommendations before she would bring that, to the board. So that's where she is. I know that she's also helped us periodically as issues have come up. And my intent is that she will help us with rulemaking. As you all know, required under Act 73 to reopen EQS and 2200 again. I expect that Sarah's guidance will be instrumental in making sure that we comply with the act, that the rules are in alignment, one rule series to the other, and that we comply with the law.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: You have a sense of Are you getting regular accountings from the AOE as to how the approved independent school approval backlog is, where it stands?

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: So that is a good question.

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: Off the top of my head, I think in the last six to eight months since we've started having schools come before us for reapproval, we've probably looked at a dozen schools. Would you agree with that, Tammy? Plus or minus?

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: Think that's a fair estimate. I don't know that we've had a specific update from them on the backlog recently, but I think part of that is just because of the timing of when the moratorium was put in and things along those lines.

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: And I do know that they in terms of and my recollection is that there were, like, 60 some odd schools that were in that backlog. So, you know, call it a dozen have been addressed plus or minus. In terms of the order of priority, I believe that the agency is prioritizing therapeutic independent schools as well as the 18 independent schools that remain eligible for public tuition funds going forward in light of the changes that came through with Act 73, and then kind of filling in from there. But they're prioritizing the schools that will have a continuing tuitioning relationship.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: And on the

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: state The of board worked with AOB to think through that prioritization. We did that over the summer with them, recognizing that not all, given sort of the transitions to some of the new structure that we have, that not all of these schools needed to have approved, right? We wanted to make sure that the schools that would be continuing on, right, would have priority in the list of those we would see sooner rather than later. So I don't think we have an update from them, that's certainly a question we can ask them, and I think you see the secretary on a regular basis as well. So we can ask and maybe you can ask.

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: But I do think it's fair to say that they are chipping away at that list. Thank

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: you. I guess sort of on that same question, so we now have a bill in front of us because we have this situation, we have the moratorium in place. We have one therapeutic school wanting to purchase another, but that's creating a new LLC and therefore seems to be in violation of the moratorium, which would require legislative action to make an exception for that, sort of as we did for moving from for profit to nonprofit. I don't know if the State Board wants to weigh in on that, or if you have thoughts on it. We haven't taken any testimony other than the bill presentation on it at this point.

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: Okay. I am aware of that school. And actually, know that Sarah Buxton is also aware of that school. I think the plan is, you know, she's done some research on the issue. I know that Emily Simmons on behalf of the agency has done some research on that issue, and the two of them we're going to have a conversation, you know, really trying to understand, you know, what what does constitute a new school? Is it as simple as the school needing a new, tax identification number? So it's one of those things where it seemed pretty simple on paper until you started chipping away at it and then realizing that it's actually a little bit more complicated and wanting to ensure that we're not creating unintended consequences in either direction. So I think Sarah is going to reach out to Emily and see if the two of them have thoughts about it. But, mean, if you want the board to have a position on that, but I think this is really more of a legal analysis. And then it goes back to the legislature and the policy about the moratorium and what is that policy intended to achieve and whether what is being proposed fits within that policy decision that's been made.

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: Yeah, I think to Jennifer's point, if you'd like to stay boarded away in on that, I think we need to be real clear on legislative intent.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, appreciate that. Frankly, as everything tends to be, it's more complicated than just that as well, because my understanding is that if you are an existing independent school or independent therapeutic school, and you want to open a whole other campus and a whole other town, that's not a new school. That's just an expansion of the school that you have.

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: You're exactly right.

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: The state board has approved a school in that instance since the moratorium. Back to the point, I think it's important that if you'd like the state board to weigh in on this, I think we would request sort of a statement of legislative intent on this, I think would help guide our discussion.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Understood, all right, that's good to know, thank you.

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: We do our best to, our goal is to create rules and regulations that stay within statute. So we think about implementation within the constraints that statute provide.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Other committee members like that, okay? Representative Brady?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: On a different topic, can you remind me where the process around new statewide graduation requirements lies? I know AOP put out a lot of draft work when that processed into your work and what that timeline might look like and updates for it. Tammy. Thanks for

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: the question, Representative Brandy. So at our last board meeting, we had a sort of a final set of recommendations that came from the AOE. That is now going to come before our committee. We have a standing state board committee that's on standards and these things. It's the same committee that's considering class size minimums as well. And so our intent is to start to take that up here pretty quickly. We have prioritized class size minimums as the most immediate need given the implementation deadlines and the implications for, school district budgets. So over the next four to six weeks, I think that will be the priority because many districts are having to wrestle with that right now. There's an implementation date of 07/01/2026 for class size minimums. We are still waiting to see guidance come out of AOE on that. We've been told there may be guidance, but we haven't seen it. But the committee is gonna move forward with sort of developing a framework for that and then start rulemaking around that per statute in August. But then right on the heels of that, we will be picking up the graduation requirements. And the intent is to use the same process that we've used in the past with revising the EQS where we will certainly take what AOE has given us as a starting point, but we will do our own independent work, which consists of testimony from stakeholders around the state as well as reviewing what other states have used and, of course, sort of its alignment with statute and other policy priorities that are coming out of the legislature.

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: So just to tack on to that, so the graduation requirements, the deadline by which the State Board of Ed must open up and commence rulemaking is 08/01/2027. So year and a half from now. Whereas the class size minimums, State Board has been directed to reopen both EQS and 2200 by 08/01/2026, to update the rules. And in our legislative review committee to which we invited representative Conlon last Monday, I believe. We had raised the issue that, I just wanna make sure everyone else is aware. There's a little bit of a hiccup, which I think was completely unintentional when act 73 was in its final hours of being passed. But the way act 73 is written, the class size minimums go into effect this July. But yet, State Board of Ed isn't directed to commence rulemaking until August. So a month after the minimums go into effect is when we start the process, and we're doing prework now, but we would officially begin the process of determining what the rules should be to implement that requirement. And, of course, it's an eight month long process, so those rules wouldn't go into effect until the 2027. And my understanding, you know, based on our meeting that we had with the full state board last Wednesday and in discussions with the agency, this is causing some agita because school districts are creating their budgets now for the 2627 school year. And so they're basically apparently, the the agencies received a lot of inquiries about this. They're not the ones that are conducting the rule making, but they are the ones that are sort of interfacing with districts and answering questions and trying to provide some sort of assurance. But it does create a little bit of a conundrum because these rules won't be effective until after the requirement goes into effect.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So yeah, this is a complicated conundrum, especially because people have brought up lots of questions like, if you've got three teachers in a classroom, how does that affect class size minimums? Or what is a class?

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: Right, it's not defined.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So in the meantime, to sum me up with this legal question, in the absence of rules created by the state board, does the secretary sort of have the power to interpret the rules for the sake of the fact that they are sort of mandatory starting July 1.

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: Mean, of course there are no rules. The secretary also came before the state board and said they are interpreting the implementation of the class size minimums at this point as being sort of aspirational. In the absence of rules that there is nothing specifically for them to enforce. And so certainly, AOE is interested in making sure that people have guidance. And my understanding is they started their own independent process to develop guidance this fall. We were not part of that process, nor were we invited to be part of that process. We've asked multiple times to see the results of that process. We've still not been provided that information. So we are, you know, we're undertaking our own process and hopefully we'll see something from AOE so we can line things up. But ultimately what the state board promulgates as in rule will be what districts have to follow. So back to your question about the graduation requirements, part of the reason that we're taking up the class size minimums first before the grad requirements is we're recognizing that districts are in limbo out there. Right? So to representative Conlon's point, Like, is it how do you even do the math? Right? On these things. And so what we are hoping to do is get some guidance out to the districts as fast as we can out of the state board that can give some sense of where we think we're headed, what we'll be sort of proposing in rule, right, even though we still have the entire rule has to go through ICAR and all those things, so that people can start to get clear on this for the purposes of budgeting. And it will have implications, of course, for decisions around school consolidation and things along those lines. So we're going to move quickly on that first, and then we'll pick up the graduation requirements right after that.

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: And I would add two things to that as well. One is the agency has said, and I would agree with this, that, you know, even though there's this deadline of July 1, where these requirements go into effect, there is an understanding that this is not a bright line, that this is a process and, you know, that schools the hope is that districts will be moving in that direction, but I don't think they should be worried that bad things are going to happen if they are not in compliance on July 1 or frankly even 07/01/2027. Because I'm remembering I think it's if they if a school fails to meet the class size minimums for a three year period. So again, I mean, like, we we've got some time for this to really take effect before the agency would ever come before the board and make any sort of recommendations. I think it would be helpful. I think the agency is providing assurance to districts that this is not a a bright line deadline. I think it'd be helpful for the board to also communicate that as well as my suggestion is that legislators do as well. Because I think there's so much concern and anxiety over what our schools are doing and what they need to comply with. It would be nice to be able to allay this concern, that this isn't something that like, I wouldn't want schools to start letting staff go to comply with a July 1 deadline when we're really in the very beginning stages of all of this.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's actually really helpful information for all of us to have. Representative Harple.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: I just want to put it out there that is already happening. Yeah. I know. People have already been given their notice, so I don't know what else we need to do to get that out there, but I know of at least six people that have lost their job because of the stepfile.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I guess, yeah, I mean, the law itself is very clear that there's a three year, and then even then it's more of a work with.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Somehow it's not getting across though, or somewhere the message is being lost, or administrations are using it as a mechanism.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And there's probably more like some

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: and saying it's not our fault, it's because of the stuff.

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: Right. Well, if I'm

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. Go ahead, please.

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: If if I may, I don't wanna speak out of turn here, but would it be helpful for the general assembly to push this July 1 deadline out for a year so that it's clear that and that would give the State Board of Ed time to update the rules and provide that guidance, but it would maybe help people not panic and think that they need to meet these class size minimums because we're still in process.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So I would just say we'll take that under advisement. I think it's important to remember that these school superintendents school boards and principals all have associations that keep them very well up to date on this information. So to sort of plead, we don't understand the law and therefore we're letting people go, I'm not sure if that's a valid thing to say, but your point is very well taken.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: This isn't a question, I'm sorry, the State Board since we're weighing in on this, but it is important that the State Board hears this. It isn't just about staffing levels, it is about building a budget. And it may be a three year process, but we're in year one of the three year process. So it could be cumulative. Boards have to set their budgets a year, essentially, in advance. And they've got to take this very seriously. And it does have an impact on whether a school may or may not be able to stay open or may or may not be able to, or should or should not merge with another school. And it's just one unanswered question with deadlines that don't even match. It's all acceptance.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: While we have you here, we had Tammy gave an excellent presentation last week on the sparsity and small school stuff. But I think I and probably other members of

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the committee need a little bit

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: of a reminder as to next steps and especially what would be helpful from the general assembly.

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: Sure. The state board, at your request, went and developed a framework for thinking about how to define by necessity for the purposes of schools that meet the statutory criteria of a small, which is less than 100 students, or located in a sparsely populated area, which is less than 55 persons per square mile. And the framework that we sort of presented to you is what the committee developed and then what the state board agree sort of unanimously voted and we passed along to you. I think the next steps in your lap, which is is to take those criteria and create a definition. We're happy to partner with you on that if that would be helpful to think through what a definition might look like, but it certainly is, you know, I think from our perspective, we did our work and we've given you hopefully what is a robust framework and background materials in terms of what other states have done, and, how you might think about multi using multiple criteria rather than just one, especially employing multiple criteria in in the context of having sort of these hard and fast cliffs, right, and trying to navigate that. But I do think that this is kind of back in your lap in terms of next steps, and we are certainly happy to partner with you on that and think through, like, what a definition might look like. You know, we're happy to talk to you about the kind of testimony that we took. There are data that we collected from the agency with regard to driving times and things along those lines, we said Excel spreadsheet. So we're happy to support you in that, but I think our work sort of at this point is done and we've handed it back off to you.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Great, thank you very much. Just needed that refresher.

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: Sorry. Not trying to push things back at you, but I think we kind of took it I to think we've run with the ball as far as we can right now. Again, happy to help you with your decision making now.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We have plenty more we're gonna talk to you later. Committee members, any other questions for our guests? Great, thank you for taking the time and look forward to our next, Jennifer, anything else from you?

[Jennifer Deck Samuelson (Chair, State Board of Education)]: I was just going to ask if, from the committee's perspective, is there anything that the State Board of Ed needs to be aware of?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would say that if you read Pete Hirschfeld's written article about where we are in education transformation, that'll give you a good sense of where we are in the education transformation process, which is thinking a lot and talking a lot.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Great, thank you.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thanks. Alright, thank you both. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Chittenden, we got a little time before we come back, talk some more. I just wanted to go over some other issues that have That are sort of us but have been sort of divided among other committees, other topics that are sort of floating out there. So we saw the big CTE presentation the other day. Commerce has agreed to continue to sort of take the lead there. However, they have asked for, think this is a very good idea, is if we could have a Commerce Committee liaison who might sit in on their further talks in those instances where it is not joint. I would also, while we're waiting for volunteers, we would volunteer Beth and Rob again to be our Appropriations Committee liaisons, if they're willing.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Spreadsheet for me, narrative for you.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: For sure, it's $100, right? Which is just to say, for our hearing later today, pay close attention, if that's what you're going with. So if anybody wants to approach me later about saying, Hey, I'm happy to be the liaison with commerce over the CT stuff, that would be great. The other issue is Pre K. Ways and Means is looking at sort of the weighting and some various They're running some scenarios to see what the implications are of some things. They're putting some concepts on the table, but they're just there to above the exercise. So for example, what if every four year old was counted as one student, Otherwise known as giving somebody the weight of zero, but that's because you're not getting additional weight. So they're kind of running that to see how that would be. They're looking at the JFO report. As they do that, the JFO was the report isn't there yet, but they've had a couple of presentations on it. JFO was basically asked to look at the funding for Pre K from the Ed Fund and the funding for childcare and CCFAP from the payroll tax fund that has been created and see if there's sort of ways of making the system work better and be funded in a way that takes some pressure off the Ed Fund, also expands pre K. So they're looking at a lot of this from that sort of waiting and what is the impact of creating a wait for a four year old, for a three year old and on sort of taxing capacity and all that. So we're looking at it from the financial end.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Just a quick question, clarifying. Is this like a proactive attempt to try to like kinda make things more efficient, or is there like a serious shortfall that they're dealing with?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'd say that there was a request by some, including me, to look at the concept of can we bifurcate the two systems because we do pre K in private settings, we do pre K in public settings, bifurcate everything from oversight, but in this case, funding. Say if it's in a private setting, it comes out of the childcare fund. If it's in a public setting, it comes out of the Ed fund. So, GFO is looking at that funding. Everything is more complicated than we think it is. They're going to present a report once it's complete, which should be very soon. But meanwhile, they're kind of looking at it from what if we do a weight that is more than what it is today, what is that impact on taxing capacity and impact on the Ed Fund? They're also coming up with a list of policy questions that would be attached to that, that would be thrown to us or to Human Services. Human services is also looking at Pre K in the climate setting and sort of what that means today and what that could or should mean in the future. We have a bit of a job that we probably need to take on within all of that is because we talk about providing Pre K for the school day. Who knows what the school day is? There's no definition. Is it ten hours? Is it seven hours? So if you are saying we are going to provide right now, we provide ten hours of Pre K per week. That's easy to define. If we say we're going to provide Pre K for the school day, we have to find school day. And it may be that we just say a school day is whatever the district decides the school thing is, which is kind of what we do now. But that's something that we probably need to start looking at and thinking about.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do we have data around school settings where I know ten hours is

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: what is required for a program, but schools do more? That's gonna be a question for JFO. Yeah, I just don't know.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think we need help, I guess, is what I'm saying.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yep. Across the board. Yep, Josh.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Are you asking what are the districts that do have full day, what have they done?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, I'm trying to not what have they done, but how many districts offer full day programs, because I think many do.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Does Yeah. He have to answer

[Unidentified Committee Member]: which question? To define what is

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the earliest. Kind of what's happening now in the field. We're gonna, yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's a piece of information I think we need.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Would you follow-up with the JFO and see if they have that info? Then the other issue, which I thought had been put to bed, but it hasn't. It was punted to a study, and that is funding for adult education or vice versa. And this has been almost exclusively dealt with. We've had a bit of it, but appropriations has largely sort of tried to figure this out. A study was done by the Agency of Administration, as opposed to the Agency of Education. I think it comes up with a couple of recommendations. I haven't heard from lobbyists on this. Haven't really heard much of anything. Not quite sure where it stands. I've heard from my people down in my county,

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: and they're very much interested in changing the language jobs and whatever that is, and instead of reverting back to whatever it has been, there's a much more equitable thing on the table, and they're pushing hard. Yeah.

[Tammy Kolbe (Vice Chair, State Board of Education)]: I

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: don't know how to answer.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I don't know if now's the time, at some point I guess I'll need a little bit of a catch up as to where we left things at the end of last session, because I know there was a compromise that was worked out, and I thought there was a path that was sort of decided upon last year, and I'm not sure what changed.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's exactly what I I

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: would like to know.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think after it left us and went into the appropriation on the Senate and all of that, it got reverted back to a study to come up with other options. But I think as I recollect, I think when it left the house, was basically we're gonna use this funding plan that is largely based on how many students you serve. Looks like it got a good age though.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I think there's a study somewhere before that. I think there have been multiple studies.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Those Meyer areas follow the same thing that Rob's been hearing about, and I do have some stuff that they sent that I went and visited them and they gave me some documents about what they're looking for.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: If nobody guess, by sort of like to keep our lane clear, I wouldn't mind appropriations dealing with this because they haven't been dealing with it, but I will talk with them about it this way. We probably talk about it because it takes no testimony. So those are sort of the other issues that are percolating out there that are, you know, if far being handled by other debates. All right, why don't we take a