Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Welcome to House Education on Thursday, 02/12/2026. The committee this morning is hearing testimony from the Agency of Education, talking about the map that we call the draft map and providing some reaction, some thoughts. If there's a little bit of time to cover, we may have some follow-up questions on some other topics that we've all been talking about. Anyway, welcome. Floor is yours and thank you both for being here.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: Thank you for having us. For the record, I'm Zoe Saunders. I'm the Secretary of Education. I'm Chris Campbell, Deputy Secretary of Education and Chief of Operations. Excellent. Thank you for inviting us today. I want to start by commending the committee for your courageous leadership in advancing a map, which you've clearly defined as a draft map that will serve as point of conversation so that we can make the important adjustments in order to achieve the quality goals established in Act 73, and appreciate the opportunity to partner with you in sharing some of our initial guidance. The request for today was to provide general principles. So in our presentation, we will not be making specific suggestions around adjusting any district lines because we know that that's going to be part of an evolving conversation that we are ready to support with any data or research or input that could be supportive. And so instead, we will be focusing on those guiding principles. We also recognize that there continues to be a lot of confusion in the public. And so I want to take a moment to provide some grounding and reinforce the reasons that we've moved forward with Act 73 and that it did garner bipartisan support to advance the goals that are outlined within that. And then to talk through some of the trade offs and considerations if there's a deviation from the criteria built into Act 73 specific to enrollment. And so we're really framing this as a series of choices to make sure are made explicit. So it was all good. And we did make some last minute additions to the slide deck. We will resubmit with this data. So if you're following along, it will be. We had some inspiration.

[Chris Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations)]: We had inspiration. We do that. After we

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: submitted. So like all conversations around education transformation, we want to center this work around the three policy levers. And it is really important that we continue to focus on funding governance and education quality altogether. So when funding levels are set statewide through a foundation formula, the districts must be large enough to deliver services effectively within that allocation. So this requires us to have a coherent strategy. It also requires us to keep our arms around the complexity of the entire system. So with respect to the foundation formula, it ensures that dollars are distributed fairly based on student needs and that they're able to deliver a high quality education. That's why we spent a lot of time talking about what the funding actually delivers. Larger, more efficient districts will ensure that those dollars actually reach the classroom rather than duplicate efforts and cost as a result of the complexity of our current system. The result is more resources aligned to student supports, opportunities, and highly qualified, well paid teachers and staff. I wanna pause in this conversation to emphasize quality and to provide some general framing around how we measure quality now in the state of Vermont and why that is important for the conversations we're having around scale and equitable funding opportunities. So there is federal governing authorization that all states must adhere to, to ensure that they are overseeing a high quality, equitable education system. So my role as a secretary of education, I am responsible for evaluating and ensuring that we as a state are delivering a substantially equal education to all students. And so it takes a very broad view. And we have a clear framework for how we measure educational quality, school quality and district quality. So the Every Student Succeeds Act was reauthorized and was a reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind. For those of you who are educators who may be familiar with No Child Left Behind, the intent of that was really to close the achievement gap. And while there were some strides made in terms of addressing those inequities, what came about from schools and states was that a lot of the framework was unworkable and became very stringent and also quite punitive in some cases. So the efforts for the reauthorization were to evolve the accountability framework, not to eliminate accountability, but to ensure that it's more there was an emphasis on continuous improvement and ensuring progress for those students who had historically been left behind. The school quality ratings must measure that progress for students and expect action if any group is underperforming. And so the state of Vermont, like all states, has an estate plan that adheres to the Every Student Succeeds Act and provides a clear measure of how we evaluate school quality. We have made several amendments over the last year and a half to respond to areas of noncompliance that were identified from US Ed. And largely, those adjustments are meant to ensure that we have a full view of quality for all schools across the system and clarity around the level of progress that needs to be demonstrated along with support. And beyond the Every Student Succeeds Act, we have our accountability in Vermont is shaped by a number of state laws along with federal regulations. The work that we're doing currently with the field is to establish a coherent framework for accountability. So to really avoid the pitfalls of multiple demands that aren't connecting and aren't supportive of the work of driving a coherent system. We hosted our strategic planning retreat in November. One of our working sessions was to really think about our accountability framework, identify what's working well within our system, where there are ambiguities and how we as an entire system or the agency of education, districts and schools can have clarity around the progress according to these performance indicators and provide the right level of proactive support. The tenets of our approach at the agency are to be proactive as opposed to reactive. And that's critical as we talk through some of the barriers to achieving quality. Why does this matter? You've asked me here to come today and provide some feedback around the redistricting map. As I mentioned at the top of this presentation, all of these changes are designed to promote quality. And so understanding our quality framework is important. The state of Vermont has clear education, school and district quality measures. Our outcomes in almost every measure, both our traditional academic and non academic measures, are not where we want them to be. And we have to ensure that schools and districts have the conditions in place to meet the state's quality standards and expectations. So we talked a lot about outcomes. When we look at our assessment data or you look at our chronic absenteeism, look at our graduation rates, those outcome measures. What we are really focusing on are the upstream conditions that impact those outcomes. And that's why as an agency, we're focusing very diligently on providing the appropriate level of statewide training, support and oversight so that, again, those conditions are in place. This is not to say we do I want to make sure that I'm clear in this presentation. We have bright spots across our state and schools that are really having effective practices that we are looking at and lifting up to scale. But we recognize that our scale, the complexity of our system, funding are real and true barriers to progress. When we evaluate prior education reform efforts, they often have not delivered the intended outcomes because of issues with scale and issues with inequitable funding. So ultimately, the work that you are engaged in is designed to overcome barriers of scale and inequitable funding to support quality. The Act 73 criteria was established by the General Assembly. The criteria was informed by data and research principles dating back to the governor's original proposal. Vindicated that districts should have an ADM of 4,000 to 8,000 students, a balanced grand list of where people count, demographically equitable districts in terms of student demographics, to be logistically feasible and to avoid disruption as much as possible to students. So this criteria, I want to note, was informed by research and data and is designed to support the quality goals established within ACT 73. The additional goals for education transformation are making explicit a number of prior education reform efforts in Vermont that were designed to enhance our educational offerings, but may not be taking root because of these fundamental challenges with scale and funding. The education transformation goals that are part of ACT 73 are designed to expand early childhood education, increase after school and summer programs in underserved communities, ensure every student benefits from the essential arts, specials like art, music and world language, provides additional access to mental health services for students, extends and enriches college and career pathways starting in middle school and culminating in graduates being prepared to take on critical jobs in high demand industries, and raising teacher salaries to ensure that all students have access to a high quality teacher and that our teachers are valued as the professionals that they are. This work is designed to quote teacher pay equity. Right now, we have significant gap in terms of teacher pay, where our teachers that are working in more rural parts of our state are earning significantly less than their peers in other parts of the state. The enrollment targets within Act 73 are based on the research that was initially commissioned by the General Assembly and was reinforced by subsequent studies. The 2024 Pikus Autoimmune Associates study found that the state could achieve cost savings and improve quality, assuming prototypical districts with at least 3,900 students. In evaluating that particular study, there was a consideration around, will this fit in the Vermont context? It did contemplate much larger school size than I think would be possible in a future state of Vermont and also took a bit of more of a cookie cutter approach. And so the work that we did at the Agency of Education last session was to adapt that model to fit the Vermont context. And you'll recall that that resulted in some adjustments to the base amount that was proposed along with the weights that were proposed, specifically to ensure that we could fund those conditions of success that were noted as barriers to education quality and are based on research of what you need to have in place to ensure a high quality system. So that 3,900 does represent a point of efficiency that is grounded in studies and grounded in practices of how other states organize systems to be high quality. That's not to say that you can't make adjustments to that. It will just come with some trade offs that I think need to be made explicit. So, smaller school district would require either a more expensive foundation formula or reductions in education opportunities. And there are with any legislation and with any funding approach that you'll put forward, there will always be trade offs. And so our intent in calling this out is to help you make explicit what those trade offs are. And we can be of support in further quantifying or modeling those impacts and how they could be mitigated depending on what choices may be decided upon. So ultimately, any change to the districts will impact the funding formula. I think that's an important consideration. And given that the funding formula is designed to support specific quality measures can impact our ability to deliver on those. So just want to make sure that we hold those three things together when evaluating any district map proposal. So I'm going to walk through some things that may be reminders or refreshers for this group, but for I think the benefit of the public who's very interested in the debate, I think it's important to recognize the benefits of scale. Oftentimes, we talk about the benefits of scale in terms of cost. We want to make sure we're clear about, yes, there is an impact on cost, but more importantly, quality. So the benefits of scale and the reason that Act 73 outlines these parameters was to ensure we could increase cost efficiency and the specialization of staff. We'll talk a little bit more later in the presentation at what we mean by specialization staff and how that benefits learning for students and support for teachers. This results in greater opportunities for students, greater equity between districts in terms of student need and wealth, greater diversity within schools and districts, greater alignment of the system, and will help us to future proof in the context of declining enrollment. We've had over a 20% decline in enrollment over the last two decades. Our birth rate is not indicating that that trend will deviate in any way. And so we will need to establish these boundaries in a way that will future proof us and ensure that our districts will be resourced in a way to deliver education quality and mitigate the impact of future enrollment decline. We talk about cost efficiency and specialization. Larger districts, over 4,000 students allow for staff to specialize and have expertise in specific areas. When we look at a larger district, they could in their central office have a pre K coordinator, for example. That pre K coordinator is making sure that they're working with all of the providers, schools to deliver education to ensure consistent accountability and quality. Also look at curriculum directors being specialized by grade band or content area to support professional learning. There's a variety of staff positions we can talk about. But when we really are describing specialization, it's also providing really specific support to students, be it maybe our interventionist, special education director, literacy coach, but also the support for our teachers. Larger districts, because they're operating at scale and are able to pull together additional resources that are specialized, it would lessen the need for BOCES to offer those cost efficiencies and ensure that students are getting those targeted resources along with teacher training. Compared to existing districts, moving to our districts with 2,000 to 4,000 students would certainly achieve some benefits of scale. So, we want to acknowledge that our current system right now is quite variable and the majority of our districts have fewer than 500 students. So the math that you're proposing, even though it's lower than the enrollment that we have recommended, certainly does achieve more efficiency than our current system. And we're going to talk through some of the trade offs And also as we move forward in this conversation, where there are some recommendations where we could expand those in ways to serve those goals. So again, because the foundational formula was designed to deliver quality based on and assuming larger districts, any change and having smaller districts would impact again, the delivery of educational programs. So there are trade offs. And so what the state is responsible for delivering is that the funding provides a world class education. We're really talking beyond adequacy in this model. The foundation formula that's built into Act 73 represents the largest investment in education funded to any other states. And that translates to the largest base funding amount per student, the largest weights on top of the largest base. So we're actually describing a world class funding for a world class education system. We're able to organize it in a way so that it's delivering on those quality objectives. We continue to be focused on the experience for students and recognize that larger districts will increase those educational opportunities. So larger districts can offer more. They can offer more courses, more electives, more programming for students and can better support our educators to improving instruction. So what does this look like in practice for students? They're able to deepen their learning based on their interest and take advantage of programs that are really aligned to what excites them. So when you think about special education, we have noted the benefit of larger districts providing more in district support, creating that continuum of services for our students. And that was a major finding from our special education report. Additionally, you might have a child that's very interested in learning another language and they could participate in a language immersion program and get a seal of biliteracy. So, these are the types of things that when you're operating at a larger district, you can provide your students different options so that they can really deepen their learning in ways of their interest. The larger districts also are important to achieving the vision of establishing regional comprehensive high schools in every district. It becomes more feasible to do that when we have higher enrollment and fewer districts. We have to recognize that there's not an unlimited amount of funding. And so we will not have the ability to create these state of the art high schools 50 times over. And it is important to be intentional around how we're aligning those resources and being strategic around building those new facilities, which I think we all share in that goal, recognize will take some time. We need to make some determinations around where that will occur. Additionally, the benefits of scale are supportive of teacher training and teacher practices. So with larger districts, remember you have a central office that's also more focused on teaching and learning and providing this training to facilitate professional learning communities, provide professional development, such as in the science of reading. Those are very costly programs to do effectively. We know that because the agency is endeavoring to support that statewide and the most effective is to have job embedded coaching. That's also the most expensive way. And so again, if we're pulling our resources to really target training in ways that are most impactful, that is more achievable through larger districts. Additionally, this is all about choices of how we use our funding. Larger districts allow us to pull our resources in different ways and prioritize those investments that are going to have the highest impact on teaching and learning practices. And that includes allowing for funding districts for coordinated curriculum and funding districts to implement high quality instructional materials, which on face value are expensive, coupled with additional training that needs to be provided to support the adoption of the curriculum and high quality instructional materials. In terms of the district budgeting models, we have done some cursory review of how we would put forward sample budgets, looking at prototypical districts at different enrollment sizes. We will be sharing this with JFO to review and then we can come back with some additional detail. But we want to share some high level findings of what we see when we try to build out budgets at this scale. It is possible to maintain services and support in the smaller districts. But as I mentioned before, it comes with trade offs and smaller districts will require new ways of operating. So I'll talk a little bit about that. So districts with 2,000 students can have the same services and supports as a larger district and provide similar salary increases. But only if they utilize staff who are part time, they share staff between schools, staff wear multiple hats and take on more than one role. So just want to note that it is possible to achieve some level of efficiency scale at 2,000, but not in the way we currently operate our schools and our districts. It would require significant changes to staffing and would require, as we're describing here, some really creative ways that have been noted as sometimes problematic when you're trying to hire a teacher for part time and sharing multiple roles. Also, when you think about specialization, when you have a staff member sharing multiple roles or wearing multiple hats, it's hard for them to be an expert in all of the hats that they wear. And that goes back to the trade off around specialization. The effect is even greater in districts with a size of 1,000 students. And so with 1,000 students, as we've done the sample budgeting, you would still need to apply a lot of the part time staffing, shared staff, but it does reach a limit of your ability to achieve our goals. And that mainly is resulting in no opportunity for salary increases for teachers and administrators. Can you pause

[Chris Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations)]: So on this for one I just want to give, and again, we

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: can come back, talk more about these budget models that we did. But the way that we approach this is we actually set the standard for quality and then build the budgets. And so that's when we're talking about trade offs and how you would need to operate differently. So you have a set amount of money, that's our foundation formula. We've used different sample configurations that have been brought forward.

[Chris Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations)]: So it's real students, right? But we, as Secretary Saunders was describing at the very beginning, we know with pretty good certainty because there's lots of evidence and research about what are the best practices in order to achieve the quality that we are not currently achieving. So if we know what that is, then you can sort of describe what are the inputs, right? What are the conditions for being able to achieve that quality? So our approach is we set those conditions, and then you build the budget, right? And so we're identifying that if you want to set the conditions for quality, these are the trade offs with your different district size configurations. So we'd be happy to come back in, talk more about this. We want an opportunity to share with JFO, an opportunity to share with some partners in the field. But we are signaling it is a different way of operating regardless of what size district, whatever the maps look like. Within a foundation formula, there's going to need to be adjustments in the way that districts operate. Because what we know is that none of our districts, even our larger districts, are not operating kind of at the greatest level of efficiency that they could be. So we do know that. We've described that in the system. But those larger districts are getting closer to it. Within this, there's always the conversation about the district size and then there's the school size. So I do also want to signal that every proposal that's come forward, including what you passed in Act 73, contemplates our existing portfolio of buildings. And so that's really important. Choices are going to be made around school grade realignment, how to operationalize, how to meet class size minimums. All those choices are being made right now. Those conversations are happening in real time. But I think it is important to note that the funding that has been put forward contemplates every single school building in our existing portfolio continuing to exist. But how you operationalize within those districts, that's the real choices. So I just wanted to make those notes around the way that we approach psychology. Yeah, appreciate that clarification. Just the way you started around, we begin with defining education quality because ultimately our role at the state level is to ensure that the dollars we're investing in education can result in an equitable and high quality education for every student.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: So we really do need to start every conversation and every modeling around what does that actually fund for the system? What does that mean for the student experience? What does that mean for our teachers? It needs to always be grounded in that. Lost mine. Okay. We want to talk a little bit more about the benefits of inclusive districts and schools. I think to date, the conversation is largely focused around the tech space, and that's an important component when we're talking about funding the system. But there's real benefits that our students receive from being in socioeconomic and racially diverse settings. So students in integrated schools have higher average test scores. They are less likely to drop out and are more likely to enroll in college. More diverse and inclusive schools reduce bias and achievement gap. Students have opportunities to learn from other students who have a different worldview or perspective, and it makes them more open and understanding of different cultures. These inclusive settings expose students to diverse students and families to support that awareness and understanding of differences and increases their individual identity development and better prepares our students for diverse settings later in life. And when we look at the portrait of a learner, those are qualities that we have already lifted up as important. And we want our students to be global citizens and we want them to be able to engage productively in civic life. And a key part of that is having experiences with others that are different than you. And so actually having larger districts where students gain exposure to students from another town, another culture is tremendously beneficial, both from also from the learning experience. In terms of equity between districts, I think we kind of talked through some of the budget models that we have done. We've also done initial cost modeling, and I would say this is preliminary, but just to give you kind of a sense of how we would approach this and establishing the rubric for evaluating different district boundaries. We have shared our source files with JFO. We'll be meeting with them later this week to ensure that we are consistent with the assumptions that are built into the modeling. So I think that's going to be important for your decision making. So what we looked at from there. Yeah, and I just want to add one more note around this idea about socioeconomic diversity within a district. So one thing that I sort of marvel at as a parent in my own district is the breadth and depth of opportunities that are available to my kids. So my school district offers a wide range of programming, but it's only for the kids in my district. Right? And so when you're actually operating in larger districts, you have communities coming together who are going to make decisions about how resources are allocated that will benefit a larger group of students. And as a state that values equity, this has to be a forefront of our consideration. I want all students to have the opportunities that my kids get in what is a relatively small district, but it's a district where the community has chosen to resource in that way. I want all communities to be able to offer those same programs and resources. And in our more rural areas, that does in fact require larger districts because you need more resources to be able to do it and to be able to This is where operational efficiency and scale really matters because you're actually working with a larger pot of money and people resources to be able to distribute those programs. So I want to note that because we do have districts who feel like, well, we offer all of this. But we want our view as a state. Our view is a statewide view of equity and opportunity for all students. Good to have you said. Well, thank you. I just got to do the high school tour yesterday and that's like, wow. So getting to this point around why it matters, I mean, we're going to talk in the next couple of slides around what that looks like in terms of the numbers. But I think what Jill is describing is really important. These numbers help us to evaluate, are we really wrapping our arms around a larger set of communities to make decisions that are more equitable and give opportunities to a larger group of students? So the way we've approached this, and we can continue to refine, we've looked at economic disadvantage comparing our current SUSDs with the example Sorry, we didn't Sorry. It is not

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We may continue.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: So, is not a is a joke. This was something I just wasn't able to correct before submission. This is not the Conlon proposal. This is the draft map that House Education has put forward with courageous leadership to engage in dialogue. That's a long title. And so is good feedback. So we will update that. So for the purpose of today, this is the House Education draft mapping. And we will relabel that for you, Representative Conlon. So, Colin, that was a fair sigh. It was a fair, yeah. I forgot about that. I was supposed to tee that up before I went to the slide, so I could have avoided your sigh. So basically, what we're modeling are the current SUSDs. We also have example of the SBA regions. The reason that we put that forward is that's what a lot of modeling was based on last session. We also are interested in looking at every other scenario, but this is just a first pass to give you some sense. And then, of course, the proposal that you are looking at. So certainly you see in that house, the current proposal that there is a large difference in our current state. So the current way we're organized with our SU and SDs, there is a large gap between the lowest and highest districts in terms of poverty. That gap is lessened with the draft map that the House Education Committee is reviewing. The VSBA map that had been reviewed last year actually narrows that gap even further. So just point to continue to review. Brand list per student. So this is important as we think about taxpayer equity and the ability to pursue supplemental spend, should that be of interest to districts? And also, there is a larger question around the impact on the state, what the state will be on the hook for funding that to ensure that equalization mechanism. So that's, I think, some further review that we want to understand. So our current structure has a pretty large difference in terms of the lowest and highest property wealth across the state. When you're looking at brand list, that is reduced with the proposal that you are reviewing, but it is more significantly reduced with larger districts. And in this context, we looked at the VSBA map. So, something to review as you're thinking about adjusting those lines and ensuring more equity in terms of the grand list. So, in terms of equity between districts, this means more equal funding directs more dollars based on student need, more equal ability to districts to raise that additional local funding, that property tax wealth is important to that. And also, again, I've already mentioned this, but we do need to look at the full cost to the state. And so if the state will be responsible for equalizing, meaning if there are districts that have different property tax wealth and they want to do supplemental spending, how much will the district and the state be responsible for supporting in terms of ensuring an equitable system? So future proofing, I think this is a really key consideration as we're talking about the enrollment. And I started the conversation with this statewide K-twelve enrollment has declined by 25% in the last two decades. The ten year enrollment trends across the districts in the health education scenario vary significantly. So looking at the prior ten year change, some of those districts in the map have 16.4 decline. Others have an increase. And so I think it's going to be important to be more targeted in evaluating enrollment projections as you're finalizing these maps. We are doing some additional work in incorporating the birth rate and want to make sure that the modeling that we do in this area will be consistent with JFO and other entities that you may receive projections from. So, we plan to come back and have a more sophisticated projection around these declines. But we can expect similar trends. And it is important to look at that historical context. And if nothing else changed, many of the districts in this map would actually end up having fewer than 2,000 students. Think you all have acknowledged that already in conversations. And so why is it important to future proof? I think we've all noted how challenging and difficult this work is. We want to do it in a way that actually supports sustainability so that in five years and ten years, we're not having this same conversation around how to redistrict in order to achieve our quality objectives. So with that, we will open it.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Appreciate the testimony this morning. And I would open it up to the committee for questions.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Leanne? I thought that you made a very compelling case in all of your slides for what are the reasons why this would be better for students and better for families, better for schools and communities. And yet we continue to receive lots and lots of feedback of schools that don't want to do

[Chris Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations)]: this and communities that don't want to do this and families that don't want to

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: do this. So I guess that my question is, why do you think that despite this very compelling information and data, they are still not wanting to go in this direction? And how do we respond to those concerns, not in a way that dismisses them, but in a

[Rep. Kate McCann (Member)]: way that's actually responsive and solves their concerns?

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: I think that's a wonderful question. Change can elicit a lot of fear. I also think the complexity of the work that we're doing creates a lot of confusion. And it is important to continue to center all conversations around the goals and the benefits so that we're working towards the same vision. That was part of our intent today is to take a step back and make sure we're clear about why we're engaging in this really hard and challenging work. The question around want is a really interesting one. So I think ten, fifteen years ago, we might have been in a place where you could say, should we engage in this work? I think we're at a crisis point where it's not a should, but a must. And it's our responsibility to communicate why and how these changes will be supportive of the goals set forward. I also think it's important to take a broad view. This idea of really understanding education quality for all students and all communities across Vermont is really important. We spent a lot of time last legislative session talking about the inequity of our current system. And that inequity will only be exacerbated if we don't make significant changes to overcoming the barriers that we know are in place for us to achieve quality. And I do think Vermonters care deeply about fairness and Vermonters care deeply about the quality of education. I think we need to continue to respond to the questions that they have, to providing data and evidence around CHI, we're moving in this direction, and to have clarity around the next steps. Can I also add if that's okay? I think it's also important because I've listened to testimony, we've had conversations as well. So I think it's also important in those conversations to get very clear about what the fear, like the specific fear is, right? Because there's change, there's loss, there's future state fears that they might have. And one thing that I've heard you speak really eloquently about in your community, It seems to be one of the fears is a real loss of what feels like a very personal local contact and control. What we talk about is local control, which is always a hard term to discuss because it means different things to different people. Is that sort of a fair characterization of some of the

[Chris Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations)]: incidents that you're hearing?

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: But in hearing your response, I kind of feel like, in a way, we're continuing to do exactly what I asked about, which is say that it must be that our reluctance to do this is a misunderstanding of the goals and the purpose. And that does feel like a dismissal. My real question was, where is gonna be the compromise on sort of our legislative side to respond to this versus just to saying, you must be afraid of change, and that's the reason you don't want this? I don't think they would agree that they're afraid of change. Think they have very real valid reasons for change.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: And so that's what I was trying to get down to, is sort of the more specific concerns, because I think different communities have different concerns, right? So one of the barriers, I think, that can be described is that we've had a particular way of engaging in decision making around our schools for a very long time. One of the statistics that we shared last year, one of the data points that was like, was one of those moments where I went, wow, is that we have 800 volunteer school board members across Vermont for 80,000 students. That's a pretty extraordinary ratio. And Zoe has shared that her last district that she worked in had 200,000 students and five school board members. I bet there's a balance somewhere in between there. But one of the things that we've talked a lot about is actually, what does authentic engagement look like? Right? And what are the concerns that folks have? And then I think I heard you Chair Conlon actually say this yesterday is what are policy choices that you all can make here that are not necessarily district lines, but are policy choices that ensure continued authentic local engagement and voice. Is it voting wards? Is it school advisory boards that actually do have some portion of funds that they do actually get to have real ownership of? Is it equitable budget modeling? Maybe yes, and to all of those things. So there has been a traditional way that we have had school boards and governments organized. I would also maybe pause it a little bit for folks who have sat on school boards. How many folks actually attend your school board meetings? Unless it's like a really sticky topic that everybody wants to talk about like mascots. How many folks actually show up and really engage with school board meetings and school board decision making and vote on town meeting day? Can we actually build something through policy choices, not governance boundaries, that will actually improve and increase local engagement. That's not to dismiss the concerns, it's to say, is there another way to address those concerns? That, and again, this is where kind of that local view versus the statewide view. It's not dismissing the local view, but it is saying we can't build a future forward education system that's serving all students if we are hanging on to governance structures that are not in fact serving students. So what are the other levers that we can pull? I have a high degree of confidence that we can actually solve these problems in other ways. So I want to address directly because you've been really articulate about it, and I know that you're expressing something that you're hearing a lot. And so I don't want to be dismissive of it. I'm suggesting that there might be other paths. In terms of specific paths that you've identified, we do have some recommendations and even legislative language. If you are interested in considering capital based budgeting, school advisory boards, these are mechanisms by which we can really foster meaningful engagement and could be a starting point for that conversation. Thank

[Rep. Kate McCann (Member)]: you. So I'm going to go back to a higher level in earlier slides. And I'm just curious about whether you're suggesting something that I want to explain and see what your reaction to it is. You were talking about the foundation formula and how we're not going to achieve the efficiencies of foundation formula unless we have larger scale. And you seem to be still advocating for the 4,000 to 8,000 for all the research that you would have presented in the first round of all of this. And the map that landed on our desk, and I won't call it our chair.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: What was that long title

[Chris Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations)]: that you gave? I was gonna say it landed on our desk.

[Rep. Kate McCann (Member)]: And last Thursday was two to 4,000 scale. And yet even now, as as representative Harple has said, we're getting a ton of feedback that that even to the 4,000 in certain regions, especially in our state, can't really be achieved without some real drawbacks and maybe can't be achieved in any way. If Based on your assessment of the foundation formula, are you suggesting that maybe some of you talked about even our largest school districts aren't necessarily operating at efficiencies now. Are you suggesting that maybe some of the larger districts could merge into larger, like 8,000 units of student units, districts, to offset the ones that will not be able to be achieved. So we're talking more like a 2,000, because I'll use that number, to 8,000. Is that what you're suggesting?

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: So I think there's a common number in what we're proposing. You're looking 2,000 to 4,000.

[Chris Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations)]: We've talked about

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: 4,000. Yeah, that's a common number in there that we can kind of start to circle around. So we're bringing this forward to really talk about the why. And there are implications to the funding itself. So let me think through how to say this. So the foundation formula will establish the funding for a high quality system. So there's a clear base amount and there are weights. It will have a if you applied that into our current system, there would be significant winners and losers. Right, so let me talk about that. So for those districts that are lower spending, they're in higher need communities, they're going to see additional resources. For those communities that are right now higher spending but do not serve as much of a more affluent, but they serve a more affluent community, they will see less funding. So it actually benefits everyone in the system to move towards districts that are more equitable in terms of the demographics of students, because that generates dollars for the districts in ways that you can pull programming and ensure that you're really fully meeting the needs of all students. So there is an advantage for some of our currently larger districts, which tend to be more affluent to partner and join with other districts so that they can have a fuller, the funding works differently for that. And also, if you think about, we want to make sure that every student in our students that have been historically marginalized are getting access to advanced placement courses, are getting access to accelerated programming. All of that costs money. And so being able to operate in the district with additional resources allows you to better meet the needs of students. And we have some also criteria around a fairness formula because I know that's really important because we want to make sure that those dollars are going to where their needs are the most impacted. So there's that piece of the puzzle. But I am suggesting that within the current formula, if there are no adjustments in scale, it is going to require some districts to significantly cut back on their budgets. That's not often discussed. And so there's a benefit there in being able to expand. The other piece that I think is tricky is that the foundation formula is undergoing a study and the final result of that study will depend on the school configurations. So there is a potential that if you have more districts than were initially contemplated, there could be additional costs built into that foundation formula to try to overcome the issues with scale. So it's all connected. So I just think it's I would really caution you that it's not just about when you say what do we mean by describing if it's achievable? Because achievable is largely dependent on the funding formula. And the funding formula right now is dependent on your decisions around districts. So the more districts that you have, the more expensive the system will be if we intend to deliver on those quality objectives we outlined. Does that answer your question? No worries.

[Rep. Kate McCann (Member)]: I think your answer was yes, that larger districts would have to merge to offset the costs that would be required districts that were not able to merge.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: Yes, and it would benefit them.

[Rep. Kate McCann (Member)]: Yeah. President

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Brady? I appreciate the focus on all of it. Think that the theory is something I couldn't be more supportive of and feel strongly about as a public educator. And I appreciate the discussion here about the impact of students on more diversity and how students are together. That's a huge concern of mine. I love Raj Chittenden's work, and I've been quoting to the committees constantly lately. In communities where you have more cross class interaction, kids do better. That has tremendous impacts. But I'm struggling to see we're so focused on districts. I understand there's something there tied to the foundation formula. But having a lot of kids in a bigger district doesn't mean they're cross pollinating, taking things together. It's the school. They've got to physically be together. It doesn't matter. So my kid, another school in the district, they're never going to step foot in. And so the sort of here to there, how I'm struggling with how much of our planning, whether it's the map, the foundation formula, is really getting us to some of that school scale. And where it's possible, and it's going to be different in different places, and even around this table, we don't all agree about those goals, all of that already. But particularly the middle and high schools, that's where these benefits come into play. And I'm struggling to see how, because we still don't have facilities money, and we're essentially assuming that some new boards or new districts are going to magically solve this and bring more kids together in more buildings. And I'm worried we're making a little bit too big of a leap there. So I'm struggling with that district school thing. We're so focused on one, we are not dealing enough with the actual realities at the school level. So I'm curious how you can, what what work you're doing around that,

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: how that plays in, what have we not talked about that? So I got all excited because Zoe and I talk about this kind of thing all the time. So I think that there are, you are right. And we're actually trying to be very tight around the conversation around districts because it's like decision one, right? And as soon as you start talking about districts, folks wanna talk about school scale and school size, and then you've lost the district conversation.

[Chris Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations)]: So you're absolutely right. We're trying to be disciplined about that part of the conversation. So I love to real world example it because it just I think it helps to be concrete. Right? So a lot of the innovations that you're sort of talking about, right? Those are things that we get excited about and talk about quite a lot. And actually, there's movement towards this and signals towards this and things like our statewide graduation requirements. And there's ways to let's real world it in the Burlington area. I don't know what that district would look like, but you have multiple high schools that need to exist because you have the population to serve them. One of them becomes your regional comprehensive high school that has your CTE. Another one starts to focus really deeply on international baccalaureate or on STEM, science and engineering programs. That then becomes a public magnet school, which exists in other states and are fabulous, and we even have some of those in the Burlington area. And students from across the district could, and this is where you start to begin those kind of communities, right? Those kind of more, not just in the case of the Chittenden area, you actually do have more racial diversity. So you can actually start to build some racial diversity within your communities, but socioeconomic diversity, which is really the hallmark of diversity in Vermont. And that's where you can actually start to, in a planful and strategic way, start to bring communities and different students together into different schools. And they're all deeply interested in the same thing. So those are some of the future state visioning that we do all the time. And how do you work towards that future state of those regional comprehensive high schools, which we acknowledge requires construction aid, but we're talking about tenants, right? Those are long term plans. And then how do you actually preserve some of our, not our tiny high schools, but our medium sized high schools and really allow them to specialize and retain a specific identity. So this is some of the blue sky visioning that we actually love to do. From a very practical order of operations though, how do you do that? You can't do it with a district that's a K through 12, like a K through 12 school, or a non operating district or whatever it is. That's where it's not just scale, but complexity becomes your barrier as well. So that's another consideration. And then you were going to talk about practical. So practically, how do we get there? I mean, Jill identified that larger districts are the first part of that equation because you're able to look across a larger set of communities. You're able to pull your students in terms of what are their interests.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: Do you have a high concentration of students that are interested in the fine arts? Do you have a high concentration of students that are really interested in engineering or in being a multilingual immersion? What is it that your students are interested in? Then you're looking at your larger school portfolio and identifying how you can maximize that portfolio in order to offer those type of programing for students that are really interesting to them in terms of some of the concrete things that we can do to move that forward. One, you've appropriated dollars to the Agency of Education to support with board training. That board training is designed to provide training around student centered results, accountability, governance. What does that mean? That means that the school board time, if you track the percentage of time that they're focused on their discussion and decision making, that the majority of that time is focused on decisions that impact student learning as opposed to focusing time on a lot of the operational contracts and things of that nature. Right. So there are some specific training that we've looked at and other states have deployed that has been quite effective in shifting the governance model to focus on quality. Part of that training can also focus on how you begin to evaluate the ways in which you can create more diverse experiences for your students and help them to evaluate their current enrollment configurations, help them to evaluate what those student interests are and be proactive in identifying ways in which to organize programming and offerings for students, which would also come with teacher training as well to support and help give the context and the background needed to deliver those specialized programs. So within those districts, there's going be a training element. Additionally, the graduation requirements, as the deputy secretary indicated, is one vehicle. We've been really intentional with the graduation requirements to ensure that it allows for deeper learning. And so the credits that are offered are also established. So there's two goals for the graduation programs. One is to establish equity across the state for every high school so that a student graduating with a Vermont diploma and it's one Vermont diploma signals that they have learned all of the skills and content they need to be a future ready learner, to be a contributor to industries. It's a signal to employers, to colleges around this student really has the skills that they need to thrive and to contribute. In addition to that, we've allowed for deepening of learning. What do we mean by that? That's strengthening our flexible pathways and ensuring that they're offering rigorous opportunities so that you could graduate with a Vermont diploma. But that diploma could also come with a seal in biliteracy or a seal in engineering. The idea of being, if you think about it in the college context, you can graduate college with a major and a minor. Right. That type of learning experience is what we're trying to facilitate within Vermont. We can guarantee that students are acquiring the foundational content knowledge that they need, that they are developing those durable skills and have the opportunity in high school to deepen their learning through these pathways. And so all of that is structured in order to support the variables that you're describing. And there's other tools that we could look at, too. We can look at the education quality standards and identify. And I think the education quality standards are pretty well aligned with what you're describing and are very much focused on equity in our delivery of education. We're currently developing as a beta test for the education quality standards is in place right now. And we're working with districts to refine those rubrics. And a key part of implementing those rubrics effectively is ensuring that we're really taking an equity lens. So again, those are going to be we started today with what is our accountability framework? It's through our accountability framework that we're ensuring that we're actually delivering these goals as intended and that the agency is operationalizing those in the work that we're doing with the field to really hold our system accountable to the values that are codified in law and that we hold dear and supporting our schools, our districts, our leaders in moving in that direction. So there's very tangible ways that we can do that. I'm excited. I could talk about,

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: like, Chittenden County taking a place where you have more density, you might not be closing school or maybe not in the near future. But you talk about magnet schools or specialization and kids choosing, I become very concerned that we're talking about tracking and that we're starting to sort kids by, if you are in an IV school, that's going to pull a certain demographic. And just on a logistical level, however the transportation works, whatever is available for a certain cohort of kids, the only option will be wherever they can get a bus to. And so I worry of a complex system that has quite a bit of hierarchy or privilege or tracking within it, with that vision. So this is where I struggle to see, and I guess this is a segue to my second kind of question or thought, if I may chair. I'm already asking my question. Okay, we're ready.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: I'm sorry, Walt has a question. Yeah.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I think our committee is also struggling because we don't know or understand, maybe I'm just speaking for myself, as deeply some of the foundation formula. And I appreciate why this all has to be invested together. We can't do one without the other. This is governance and funding, absolutely. And we are, we do spend a lot on education. And even in the sort of future Envision Foundation formula, we're going to spend more than most states possibly. But I do think for the greater listening world, we have to remember, we have quite a bit of evidence we spend more on social services in schools than other places potentially. And we know we have more inclusion in our classrooms. And we just looked at that data this week in terms of how inclusive our classrooms are of students with special needs. There's work to be done there. But that certainly comes with a cost and that changes the rule for teachers. So we're going to have a generous by other comparisons, but it is also a reduction or a squeeze versus where we are now. And that's, I think, a really important part of that piece about the future foundation formula being very generous. Yes. And it's probably a cut in many places from where we are currently. And so those two are very different claims. And I'm concerned about our so focused on the first part that we lose sight of the second part, which brings me, I guess, the same thing you were just talking about. But I am still struggling to understand when we say we want, I want all those things, a world class education, all the opportunities. I mean, I think we want I need to more read the graduation standards more carefully. But I think we all want high school offerings that are pretty close to what Essex Westford and CVSD, our largest districts, are offering now. Above the class size minimums that are being contemplated here. So the only thing to do is to reduce opportunity in most places. And if you were to merge some of them, you might have a little bit of operational or a little bit of administrative savings, but you're not changing. You can't fit CVU in South Burlington or South Burlington in CVU. And so you're still operating those schools and everything with them. And so I guess struggling to see how we say the vision for everyone is maybe what some people look to be like, I wish we had that. When I think some of the practicality of the path we're on is going to be cuts and reductions in those places. And

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: I'll stop there. You are right to name. So it's uncomfortable, but I'm just going put it all out. Got to get the concerns, and this is why it's important for us to be explicit around how the funding is actually applied. It's why we continue to produce sample budgets to show how this can be operationalized, recognizing that districts will be able to make different choices depending on the priorities for those communities. It will require the state of Vermont and specific districts to operate and deliver education differently in order to gain the benefits of the foundation formula. And so that's why we're trying to be really clear around what those staffing models would look like. How can we ensure that this the implementation of the foundation formula results in this level of quality. It's not just about the class size minimums. It's around how you're configuring all of your staffing in buildings. And again, identifying how you can realign some of those resources to increase teacher salaries. The other piece of the puzzle that's important, the foundation formula, we recognize that this is a significant change in how we're funding our system. And so there are systems that are going to be leveling up and systems that are going be leveling down. That's only if we don't change. So I just want to make that point. The reason we're pushing for the larger districts is to actually be proactive in addressing this pain that you're describing. If we implement the foundation formula now in our current system, it will create significant pain and challenge and will force districts to merge. To deliver education, but it'll force them to do that in a period of panic and a period of crisis. And that's what we're trying to avoid. When you look at our current state and we showed those slides around the level of difference in terms of poverty level and property tax wealth, all of that plays into why it will be really challenging to implement the foundation formula without making the adjustments to the underlying system so that the funding actually works. Keep in mind that the implementation of this will take a couple of years. And the other piece that is built in, and I think it'd be good to have JFO and just providing details around how this will be put into place. But there is an adjustment period that is recognized within I think it's a three to five year.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: It's three year. Is it three year

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: where it's kind of understanding that even when you merge some of the systems, there is still going to be a level of kind of moving up to spending and down to spending. And so that there is really cushion built into the system to support that transition. The larger you go as districts, the more you're cushioned from those impacts. But I think it's really important to actually look at it. And so we're meeting with the joint fiscal office and their finance expert tomorrow. We intend to be very collaborative in supporting with data of modeling that they need to do. But I think this is the work that really needs to be put out there because we are trying to prevent this pain and disruption by recognizing that for the foundation formula to work, there does need to be scale achieved within districts. And that scale also comes with delivering our education in a new way. And we need to be transparent about that. And I think also, I'll just add a couple more notes there. One is we're very, very committed to continuing to work directly with the field. So I just wanna signal that it's not necessarily something that you all get from formal testimony when the bees come in, we work very consistently with members of the field, specifically business managers around, like, check our math. Does this work? Is this implementable? And we will continue to do so. So all of our budget models, the reason you're not having presentations today is that we need to work with the field on this. And there are specific districts all across the system that we identify as being sort of representative samples. The other thing I would say is you're pointing to some really important things. For example, the findings of our special education report, the work that we've done, starting with the listen and learn, but has been really consistent and we hear all the time around struggles with behavioral issues in classrooms. And then how do schools try to solve for that is usually by adding more bodies to the system. And we recognize that we at the state level and then within districts need to do more to support classroom teachers. In number one, that universal instruction, improving our tier one instruction. And then also those strategies for helping to manage challenging classroom behaviors and really being able to support that because those pressures have cost consequences. And so you're pointing to something that is part, I mean, we we talked about our strategic plan, that's like a major pillar, the multiple pillars of our strategic plan is how do we actually help to improve the quality? And one of the nice benefits of improving what's happening and supporting teachers is some reduction of pressure that is being resolved right now with additional people, additional personnel. I like to share this and we probably need to wrap up. I'm not sure.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: this is really a good conversation. Yeah.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So I can't believe we're free till eleven. Okay.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: So one of the And Zoe has a whirlwind of testimony today. She's just living here at State House. But one of the things that I remember most when we did our listen and learn, I was speaking with the superintendent and we were talking about mental health, social emotional learning, those kinds of pressures within schools. And he said, and it was, I remember I wrote it down, I think I put it in bold. I am hiring behavior interventionists to keep my classroom teachers from quitting. Right? So, in an attempt to address the issues around challenging behaviors and student mental health and kind of social emotional needs, the result was to add more bodies to the system. And the behavior interventionists tend to be not specialists. And it tends to result in situations where we've got more one on one kind of body to body. It's it's not the result that we want. And I see some of our teachers nodding our heads. This is not how we wanna operate. So this is a multi year project that we all have to improve what's happening and to support teachers is like right at the heart of it to ensure that they feel effective. You've heard me talk about how challenging I think it would be to be an early career teacher in Vermont right now. Our Ed Prep programs are not preparing them for this. We know that they're not prepared for really high quality instruction that addresses all learners. So we have a more inclusive environment. And yet we also know that for some students to access that environment, they need that one to one instructor. So we've diagnosed pretty well, I think at this point, all these pressures. And now our strategic plan work is how do we start to help the system? It all has a cost and resource implication on the back end. So you're pointing to important things. I feel like we know what those are. We've got plans to move forward to address them, and it does help to alleviate some of those pressures. And it's the right thing to do, which is, that's nice when it all comes together.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I guess I do think we need to acknowledge, however, that some large school districts like CVSD have less room to maneuver in a foundation formula world than perhaps where I live in Addison County, where we know we are overbuilding and under enrolled. I

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: know that these would be decisions that would be made within school boards and so you don't make the decisions and can't really give me the number. But in all of this, do you have an estimation of how many teachers and support staff in all levels of building maintenance and direct student impact would actually not have their jobs anymore? I mean, because that's where the savings of teacher salaries going up is coming from, is getting rid of other teachers. Or is that something that JFO can give an estimate around? I know that you don't make those decisions, but I think it's really important to acknowledge what is the number of people that wouldn't be working within

[Rep. Kate McCann (Member)]: the system moving forward?

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: So I think I would acknowledge that we have some of the highest staff to student ratios in the country. Lowest. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Off the wrong side. In other words, so we have a lot, we have more adults in our buildings than is typical in schools across the country. And that's largely to contend with our issues of scale, our issues sometimes with recruiting and hiring specialized support. So we bring in additional adults to try to help manage the situation. So I think there's a couple of things to think about here. One is there are a number of positions that stay vacant and there are often replaced with very costly contracted support. Right. So there's those roles. There are rules that are currently in place with teachers on provisional licenses. We haven't seen the type of conversion we would like with those that are pathways to become a permanent teacher. So there's a lot of turnover in that group. I think there's also a lot of our educators that may be near retirement. Right. So I think there's a way to really look at this that is passionate and data driven around what this actually looks like over the course of several year implementation as we're actually kind of realigning how we provide staffing matrices in our schools to deliver high quality education. So, would just note that I often say we don't have the workforce now to fill the jobs we're trying to fill. And because of that, as the deputy secretary was describing, we're bringing in adults in the building who are caring adults, but they may not have the level of training and expertise to truly meet the needs of students or support the teacher. And so when you're in a larger district and the superintendent and the school board is able to look across, you can think about how you can really place those experts that are needed in which part of your system to meet those needs. Right. It just allows you to have that greater and broader view. But to your point, we have done modeling in these budgets with samples around what those ratios look like. We have really relied on evidence and research around the input. I always call them the inputs, but like what needs to be part of a high quality system. And we can use that as a framework as we think about building budgets and building staffing matrices to support. And I think what the secretary is describing is a planful process. A planful and respectful process. We talk about right sizing and that sort of There's no humans in that, but what we're talking about is we simultaneously have critical workforce shortages and somehow also the smallest student to teacher and staff just student.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Darn it. So you did it wrong too. Never had a good time.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: In the countries, by far, we're talking about 30% difference to the next closest state. So there is something about our system that we need to take a look at. So I would never wanna be like, we've done it, it's 22% reduction. I don't think that that's a real description of how we would possibly go about approaching this in a way that is, again, taking into account natural attrition from retirement. Turnover. Turnover, provisional licensure, key vacancies, and when you're operating within a larger district, where do you actually need to resource people? And that, again, we're talking about operating the system a little bit differently. Lot differently. So currently in a lot of our supervisory unions, if you're in a district, your contract is with that district. So you might lose your job in that district, but you might have a school fifteen minutes away that could use you. And right now you don't share a contract with that district. And I think, Brett

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: McCann, you actually talked

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: about this has implications for things like retirement and your benefits and where you're at on the ladder. If you're in larger districts, you could look at in a planful manner that school boards would be tasked with doing, how do you actually identify where you have key gaps? And I would be hard pressed to find a teacher that would say, No, I would rather lose my job than go to that school. I mean, that's sort of nature of teaching, right? Is that you kind of go where you're called.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I had a oh, go ahead. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I understand everything you're saying, but

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: it does seem that before

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: we make this decision, we should have some idea of like, okay, yes, maybe some will move to another school, but at least this many are going to be not have a job offer anymore. That's not just teachers. I mean, it's all of our support staff as well. I just, I'm looking to know who will actually lose their jobs. And I don't how know to give that information. I've asked for it continually, and I realize the complexity of actually coming up with that number.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: But this seems really important. So I would note that in our current system, we are seeing significant staff reductions year over year. That's happening now. It's not happening in a strategic way where you can think about if maybe that is not in the budget for this one district, the district over actually really needs that resource and that could be redeployed as Jill is describing. I think that the reason last session we advocated for doing it all at once was because we could be really clear and explicit around this is what the funding provides. This is what that looks like in terms of staffing and programs and wraparound resources in these districts. Act 73, as it came together and as it should, there should be a lot of compromise with this process. It sort of started to decouple those things. And there are outstanding decisions that the legislature needs to make related to the districts that then inform the final foundation formula to do the precise modeling that you're looking at. Despite that, we recognize at the agency that we need to provide as much information as possible. So, what we are doing is applying our evidence based strategy to produce sample budgets, Assuming all of the parameters in Act 73 are met. And then as you are exploring any deviation from that criteria, we are going to adjust that modeling and show what those tradeoffs are to the best of our ability. That's what we're committed to bringing forward. But this is part of the reason last session we were really pushing to have all these decisions made at the same time because clarity is kindness. And we right now don't have clarity because there are a couple of outstanding items, big ones that need to be determined in order to do the specific modeling that that you're requesting. However, as I said, we've already built some sample budgets based on the draft map. We've shared those with JFO. We want them to look at kind of the assumptions that are built into that so we can actually bring it back to you. We're we're very committed to transparency. And I think the field, our educators, our community members need to see that to understand what is possible when we make these decisions and how we can really leverage this large investment in education and ensure that it's driving high quality teaching and learning. We're committed to supporting that.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: As we were talking about staffing for the future, reminded me a couple of years ago, McLaura Foundation put out a 10 most promising jobs, or ten year project. Anyway, I talked about the ten year projection for openings in K-twelve teachers, including special ed CTE, would be 7,400. The attrition, the wave of retirements, which is a major factor in that.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: We can do this in a planned way, but we need to be clear on all of the inputs. We'll work towards that with you.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It usually means, so I'm very happy about this.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: This actually connects to just kind of the conversation that we were having about, right now, we are trying to address student needs with a lot of people. And so I also would want to assure anyone that we would not be advocating for the reduction of physicians until you've addressed the conditions. We have to change what we're doing. And this actually goes back to why we did not recommend special education weights or a change in that funding, because we knew that we actually have a lot of work to do in the system before you make any change to

[Rep. Kate McCann (Member)]: the funding. That's right.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: And so it's exactly this. It's like there's a recognition that the practice actually needs to change. You don't wanna just remove the resource because the lodestone here is not only improving quality for students, but at its most base level, not disrupting, right? Not making things more challenging for students.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We'll do about five more minutes and then we'll break. But really appreciate you sticking around longer. It's really helpful.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: Thank you for having us.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Representative Reed? I think we're genuinely, like, we're trying as a committee and we've got to have the hard conversations now. We're going to run out of time to figure out if we're going be

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: able to get somewhere or not.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: When you talk about changing the system and the behavioral issues and the challenges kids are bringing into schools for teachers, I hear all of that. My gut is just that it's a yes and. I read the DMG report was the first legislative thing I read as a teacher. And I was like, yes, yes, yes, yes. And I worked with a great principal who was an instructional leader. I'm like, we've got to Yeah, absolutely. I always want and need to improve my first tier one instruction. And I think we can do so much better. But I also just don't think we're in any way, this committee, anybody is going to be able to change the underlying increased poverty, the issues that are coming into our schools that I'm not sure that the best teaching in the world is going to change some of the just human needs around, again, poverty, some of the current political climate, and what's happening with certain student groups, just substance abuse, those things. So I worry. But this is more a point I want to remind the committee and not necessarily ask for your response so much. But when you talk about we're addressing those with more staff, addressing some of these needs that are not academic, but other needs students have, behavioral needs and things, I think, I know this is uncomfortable, but I think this is also part of why the really hard conversation around same dollars, same rules, and how our schools operate in a future state, if we're going to be much tighter on funding, that why it's so important. Because if schools aren't all serving the same students or held to the same standards of who they must admit, serve, and retain, no matter how challenging that student gets, we create pop up issues in other places then start to concentrate that need. And the costs are not carried in any equal way. So I'm not even don't need

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: to respond to that. But that is, for me, a big part of why that is an integral policy piece that I know is challenging for our committee right now around things that go hand in hand with new districts. The administration has been consistent around shared accountability. It is important to ensure that our public dollars are serving our students well and equitably. And we've been very consistent with that. In fact, even bringing forward legislation last session to review that and think about what does it mean to have shared accountability. All of the work that we do in the agency as we're talking about supporting literacy outcomes is looking at providing support to educators that are across settings. And that's true for pre K as well as we look at accountability of pre K measures, ensuring that there's consistent quality. We've actually, within our reorganization, we established a new division that is looking at education program approvals, and that is expressly put in place to ensure that we have oversight and support for consistent level of quality in every setting where education takes place and is funded by public dollars. So both the administration and the agency have been very consistent about that. I what your point is, is looking at the overall ecosystem. I think a lot of that has already determined. The General Assembly has identified that there is a need to deliver public education through independent schools in certain parts of our state. And you've established a criteria or how you define that need. So really, a lot of that work has already happened last session. And our focus now is ensuring that we can organize our system in a way to deliver on those quality objectives. But I actually think we're beyond that conversation. I think that was a conversation that happened last year. I think we've been really clear about shared accountability. We've been really clear. And you have established criteria for what determines need. And we're supportive of providing training to the schools, every school in Vermont that receives public dollars. That's part of our monitoring and accountability framework. I think there's often not an understanding of accountability and how that works in terms of the governing rules for both public schools and independent schools. But we take our role as an agency very seriously in terms of accountability, and that's ensuring that there's a high level of quality where public dollars are used to deliver education. We have So I'm not sure how else to answer that question, but the other piece I would say in your first comment is your concern about the specialization. I would say we approach this work from the lens of both equity and rigor. We can't lower expectations for students because of the challenges that they may be facing. And so our approach is equity and great. And that means that certain students may need additional support, but we have to hold them to a high expectations of meeting those grade level standards. So with all of the work that we're doing, that's a lens to our approach. I don't if there's anything else you

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: want add.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: No, I think that was good. And I think that you've seen that expressed, our chronic absenteeism applies to those approved public. So you're seeing that expressed through action at the agency. And I think also from what we've seen in our independent schools is a willingness for that. I mean, it's also beneficial for independent schools to be able to comply with those standards of quality around special education access, facility safety, literacy outcomes. So I think really what we're talking about is how are we delivering a consistent level of support and quality funding across Vermont. And you've already made determinations of where our statutory requirement to deliver public education is inclusive of independent schools.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I know we could go on and on, but let's give everybody a break. Everybody, there

[Rep. Kate McCann (Member)]: any else?

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: I think we would really be interested and we can do this informally, just continue to let us know how we can support. Is it data? Is it as a thought partner? We're stuck on this. We'd really like your thoughts and considerations, right? If not recommendations, please continue to work with us. As Zoe said at the beginning, we want to thank you because you are really showing a lot of courageous leadership in having these conversations. It's not fun, and we understand that you're probably getting an air full when you go back to your communities, but let us know how we can support you. And we're here to make this work. You laid all your foundations with ACT 73, and now you're kind of down to those key It's one or two, but they're big. One or two really big decisions that is going to offer that clarity. We would encourage You've heard us say clarity is kindness, right? We have confidence that when you give districts the parameters that they need, they will immediately start solving the problems and we will be there to support them. How do we make this work? So I just really encourage you all to keep going and keep having the conversations and just be very much in touch with us. How can we help? Because we will be here.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. And I go right after you since

[Rep. Kate McCann (Member)]: we all Mine's really one that they already offered. So I would love to see the actual PowerPoint, because the one we

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: You have is to see the updated one?

[Rep. Kate McCann (Member)]: I want to see the updated one because the one we have is about half

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the size. Yeah, that's right.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And I guess I would just say one common theme, and while it's hard to build consensus in this room right now, but we do have consensus on one thing, and that is school construction aid. So to the extent that you can advocate for it within your world, that I think is one of the key features of making all of this happen in a positive way than in a deficit way.

[Zoie Saunders (Secretary of Education)]: I will be presenting in a few moments to House Ways and Means on school construction aid and really talking through the timeline. This doesn't happen overnight. So there is an order of operations for how we're approaching this work. I think that testimony would be relevant to your conversation as well.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you. All right, everybody.