Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Welcome

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: back to House Education on 02/25/2026. Really turning ourselves to a little bit of committee discussion on what we've heard, what we already talked about, what we're gonna have coming up. In a way, I'm almost hesitant to say, let's have a discussion just because tomorrow, for example, we're gonna have the agency in here. They've got some new thoughts to offer. So that's happening. But I think it would just be important to kind of go around the table and ask all of you for any questions, comments, or concerns to sort of bring to the committee as we go forward, maybe focusing more on questions or requests for more information, I think we sort of have a good sense of pain issues out there. But I just sort of like to kick us off with that to start with. Rob's ensured that easiest one right here. You can pass, but really like it is like, you know something, I wonder why we can't do this or could we hear more of that or what's wrong with this?

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: Okay. I'll go first.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And these could be rhetorical, but we don't necessarily need to debate them. Well,

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: you know, just when you said concerns, a question that I just kinda wrote down. Well, I guess, you know, a big concern is just sort of disruption, to our systems that are in place without the promise of making it better, without the thought that we're streamlining ourselves financially. I just kinda see how everything's tied together between reducing the number of districts and SUs and the promise of or at least the idea of regional schools one day. And I'm just concerned at this point that we're we're gonna pick something to say we pick something. Alright. Everyone want this to happen. We're, you know, like, feel like maybe we need to just, you know, put off the gas. That's all.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: K. Thank you, love. Leanne?

[Emily Long (Member)]: I

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: guess I'm a little bit more foot on the gas, but not in like, let's make sweeping changes and slash and burn. But I think that we need to sort of start to figure out some decisions because people are asking for some major relief. I feel like in the proposals we've heard, there have been good things in all three. And I'm wondering if there is some way to sort of get together all the best of them. So the proposal that we heard from Campaign for Vermont, I have some concerns about. I don't think that they had a very good understanding of what superintendents do and how we need instructional leaders. And I don't think that their form of governance would fit, but I'm very intrigued by the idea that if we created BOCE or CISAs around tech centers, that that could save $300,000,000 I mean, they're estimating that to be 14% of our education budget, And that is the biggest number we've heard so far. I would like to pursue it and confirm that that is in fact what it would say, because if it's anywhere close to that, then I would like to start looking down that path and see if we can make parts of that happen while not disrupting schools and not going with that form of governance. And I realized that that would mean that you'd also need both these managers and potentially even some assistant superintendents if we made the SCUs, our CTE regions, and that would chip away at that $300,000,000 in savings. But that's still the biggest number that we have heard. And so I'm interested in that. And someday soon, kind of put that on a map to submit if we get ready to kind of consider that idea. But I want to hear what the agency says tomorrow as well. I think that the good part of Senator Bongard's plan was this three year rollout with the incentivized mergers and then maybe a little bit of, I mean, I hate to say this because I'm not sure I want the governor, the government to step in, but like, who can't do it in three years, fine. Maybe that's the compromise. What I'm hearing is that more people are kind of getting used to this idea of regional high schools, regional middle schools, and in some cases, even regional elementary schools. So I think that I have faith in Vermonters that we could get there if they could be part of this discussion. The first thing that we need to do this year is the tax relief and then kind of think about the mergers and the governance over the next few years. So that's kind of where I'm at is I'd like to look into the numbers with this $300,000,000 savings that's put on the table.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We can have you look into the numbers.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Well, don't know. I'm not the person that's going to be able to check that and figure that out. Do we send it to JFO and say, is this true?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think maybe, and I would ask you to just maybe ask them to

[Emily Long (Member)]: us

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: with some documentation that and then making sure with the committee that how that number is arrived at. It's not even the governor that's anywhere near that number.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: But if we can pull that off, like, that's exactly what we're looking for without the disruption to schools.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. Not sure it's possible.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: think, you know, without knowing more behind it.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Yeah. But it's definitely within our realm, yours, to ask for the sources. I'll do that. Where does that number come from? Okay.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Leland?

[Leland Morgan (Member)]: Yes. I've only been in this committee for roughly six weeks, so the comments that I have are based on emails that I've received from my district and all over the state, and I've read those. The biggest concerns that I see from individuals about the state, their biggest concern, yes, they're concerned about taxation. That was a starter for a lot of people in my district. But their major concern at this point is school choice. That's the number one issue that I'm getting basically from my area, but from a lot of other areas also. The other thing that, in my area, another big concern is mergers. They would like to be able to voluntarily merge when and if they need to. And I think the, yeah, those are the basic three things that seem to concern a lot of people better than me. That's a bit of all I have to say about it.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Understood. Is there questions that you have or requests for more information of any kind be beneficial? Well, at this point, no, I think that I've received a lot of information that I'm still trying to absorb, but no, I

[Leland Morgan (Member)]: don't have anything specific, but I would like to stay at this moment.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I'd say it's similar in my region, not just the five towns I represent, but the ones next door in Essex County, where we have some deserts. School choice has been very important to them as opposed to designation because just the geography that's covered. The independent schools question again, and so testimony I would like to hear is from the other side. I would like those independent schools to discuss the same data we looked at this morning from their viewpoint, because they do follow the 2,200 rule series. There are rules they follow and how different are those from public schools, and could that be adjusted. And same with tuition, depending on whether it's announced tuition, there's differences there. So I'd like to hear from them, because in my region, the independent high schools and elementary schools are where we go to school. And they could just opt out. That's great. There will not be a school built in Essex County, ever. And if there is a regional school built, it's ten years away.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So this is a surprise to any of you where I'm coming from. I've been engaged in trying to find a way to change our education delivery and funding system for over thirty years now and still believe we need to take action. But focus has always been on trying to improve educational opportunities for our kids while strengthening the community connections to our schools. I think those are critically important. And I have been pretty clear about not wanting to dig into maps until we are very clear about what our goals are, what are we trying to accomplish. Fearing, because I've had plenty of experience with it, as we heard this morning, I got reminded of a bill that even I forgot about January, but I've been going back in time. We've been through this path so many times before, and I don't expect any different outcomes when we when we take the same path. And I feel since we walked down this path last January, started walking the path last January, it felt like the same path again. And that's been really tough. So looking at maps distracts us from what my goals are, which is focusing on our students. What do they need? How do we strengthen the agency of education? How do we strengthen the role of the state board of education. We've lost our discussion points on that to some degree. I'm not saying that we're not putting that first, but I have huge concerns about how the foundation formula fits into the work we're doing in this community. And it appears that I can't stand up in front of my communities that I represent and tell them that the work we're doing is going to improve education opportunities and outcomes. And even as the language has changed, evolved over this session, even then the cost curve, because I have no way of showing that to anyone. And special ed is a huge question mark getting bigger for me almost every time we have testimony on it. I need to know how that all fits in. So I prefer to take some steps forward and things that we can move this year, and I think we should move this year. We've talked about them many times in here, things that we can move. I think that there's some tax policy that should absolutely move. And give ourselves another year to talk about the governance structural changes that need to take place as well. The recommendations I'm hearing, the opportunities, the ideas, none of them are fitting. I cannot, and continue to say, cannot support larger SUs with the same number of school districts. And I have yet to see how reducing the number of school districts after increasing the size of SUs, reducing the number of school districts gets into that. Even this morning, it felt very vague to me about new voluntary mergers and in three years down the road. So I'd like to be more intentional about what our goals are. And when we passed Act 73 out of this body and sent it over to the Senate, we had an extra year on there. And I think that we still need that extra year. I've always felt that. I'm feeling even more concerned about an extra year not being enough because we're taking up a lot of time spinning our wheels here and not actually talking about what our goals are and what we're trying to accomplish. I was intrigued by the testimony this morning, I'll just say I'm going to dig into some of that data, which I haven't had time to look at, but I will, to see how that fits into all of that picture as well. But that was quite intriguing to me this morning, what I heard. And I think the vast majority of the data that was used in that testimony this morning was AOE data, except where it said they were from other areas. That's important to me. We are really struggling getting the data out of the AoE. There was some data there that I wanted

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: to continue to get to. Thanks very much. Kate? Hi. For thoughts, concerns, questions that you might have that need to be answered?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I would love to hear some more testimony around age eight thirteen. I would like to know what gets in the way of all schools agreeing to commit to EQS, including our publicly funded independent schools. And I really liked the testimony this morning, and I heard what Beth was saying about like, oh, they can just opt out. But what I heard repeated by Christa over and over again was, if the rules are too hard here, is it possible to, what is it that we want from our public schools, and if the rules are too hard, can we change them in such a way that the rules work for everyone? And also, I don't know if this is a great time for this, because I think we're talking about maps and all of that kind of stuff. But I really thought the testimony that we got around early college was really important to hear last week. From the kids. Yeah, from the kids, but also from the grown up at the table, around how we are getting a return on our investment, especially for those kids who are attending CCB. And I'm wondering if there's a way to maybe push the envelope a little bit and then miscellaneous envelope around where the dollars go.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Chris?

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: I guess, know, I had some concerns and in reality a little frustration at how Act 73 has basically turned into an independent school conversation, when it should be a much bigger conversation. We heard Jess mention two ninety six public schools. There's 18 independent schools that are still able to take public tuition, and that is what's holding us up with Act 73 in this bill. That's the elephant in the room. That is what's holding us up. So we need to have to figure out where we're going draw the line here and focus on fixing public education, or are we going to continually try to use an opportunity to end independent schools? I'm feeling a lot of frustration about it, because I want something to move forward that's going to fix public education, and we're not focused on that right now.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Counting the four historic academies in your account.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: I'll hold up that because I feel myself getting a little bit worked up on it, But I'm very intrigued about this two or three year model, necessarily the map, but what Senator Baumgartner talked about, and utilizing something like that in conjunction with possibly the proposed three year spending cap in order to allow schools and districts those two years to figure it out before we get to more of a stick approach. So I'm warming up to that kind of an idea.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you. I am trying to get notes here. So for me, sort of say, well, we need to keep our sort of eyes on the goals. The the challenge, of course, with 73 is it's got multifaceted goals. It is attempting to bring in some cost containment through the use of a foundation formula. It is attempting to bring funding equity and therefore student opportunity equity under a foundation formula. It is striving to improve, I'd say, student opportunity and therefore student outcome in a world that currently due to declining enrollment, declining conditions of our buildings, we continue to spend more, but really without it translating to more for kids because while we're spending more, we're still cutting. So, you know, the you know, I would I would say. I remain. A believer that we do need bigger, larger districts because as we move and adjust to a funding formula that for some will hurt and for some will help, We need school boards and our educators some room to maneuver through governance in order to continue to be able to offer the best opportunities that they can while sort of adjusting to rapidly declining enrollment and either the pressures or the opportunities that a new foundation formula provides. You know, and think we always have to keep in the backdrop. The system today and what's the cost of really not moving forward with some significant change? That's my concern. And, you know, sort of the lost opportunity to say. Do we need a 119 school districts and 53 superintendencies in a state where we're educating 82,000 kids? You know, when I when I think about, the problem is none of our choices or what we need to do here are fun or we're not putting We're trying to readjust a system that hasn't been able to readjust as quickly as the situation on the ground has changed. I would say in most areas, obviously, we have some areas where growth is still a thing. And I just worry that if we don't if we don't change our government structure, that we're not really going to be able to have the room for districts to adjust to this new world of declining enrollment, crumbling buildings and more clearly defined funding mechanisms through the foundation formula. You know, I think we can all sort of agree that regional high schools and middle schools are a way to go, and I think we need to think how we can take that consensus belief and put it on paper as something. And frankly, we feel the need to sort of say we believe that that takes priority over big changes in smaller schools. Can we put that on paper in a way that we can have a consensus on? So, I guess that's my concern. My sort of questions are more basic. I'm sorry, go ahead.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Can I just add one more thing? It kind of makes me think about what you're talking about, the idea of school choice. How can we get the data on the four historic academies about how many attend because they're the school for the towns in which the kids live, and they are at least one of your two, if not both, take kids from other countries or whatever, board them, whatever. And then how many of their kids come from choice towns or whatever? How do we get that data? We get the data for those four towns?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think you can get the data for For those four schools. How many publicly funded students are there? Can make a request through the AOE. Think that that But

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I want a split between publicly funded kids who live right there in the district versus the ones who come

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: The pay for freight.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: From another town.

[Emily Long (Member)]: About three

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: quarters of all independent school students go to one of

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the four historic academies, three quarters,

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: and it's under 4,000 kids total at

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: 18 schools, I believe. Can I do a concrete example? Don't think that's I don't I can Maybe I can clarify with an example. So Linden Institute is in my town of London. You would like to know, like, how many kids from Linden go to Linden Institute? How many kids are coming from Granby or Bergh or other choice towns are coming to that town other than just the kids who live in that town? Correct. But not, I don't need those numbers out. No, you want the Vermont Choice Public Tuition kits. But I want a nation where it's between the Los The town where they're located and the But Choice can be designated. Don't I know if it's exactly the Designation same for one school. Sure. Only set for designates, I believe, currently in this state. Even though designation is on the books, and you can do it, only if that And you want the towns from which they come from. The towns they come from. Yes. For the four historic academies?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yes.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I don't know how easily available it is, but I would say, Lauren, the liaison With the AOE would be the person to put that data request into.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Okay.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Anyway, so we we are gonna have to figure out a way to forge ahead. We'll see what the AOE has to say tomorrow. We do have a clock ticking behind us because we do have a crossover deadline that we probably are not gonna make. We'll have to ask for a dispensation. You know, the senate has a path that they might be going down. We need to figure out if we wanna create a path to go down. I I hope that we do. I would agree with the vice chair that the more we can talk about trying to enhance opportunity and therefore outcomes for all Vermont students is better than devoting too much time to independent school factor. But I realized that every time we try to do this, that becomes a complicating factor because it's just complicated. You know, if we can say, hey, why don't we just make them all follow EQS? Well, we've got four of the we could look at the academies alone. I don't they don't require teachers to be licensed. So what do you do about it? We'd have to answer those questions.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Well,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: did. No, no, Sharon follows The US. That's why. So those are issues. And then what does that do, especially within the CTE world where it's really hard to find licensed educators. So it's not as simple as that. And we could we could we could spend two years just sort of working our way through how that would all happen. And, you know, that's it's this is not a it's not a new topic of discussion. It's I've been here for ten years and it always comes up and the same rules say money has always been there. It's hard to make. Progress on it because. You end up with sort of, well, maybe we won't take, you know, let's remember that these, at least in the case of the four store academies, I think a smattering of elementary schools, we need them. You know, we have I think that that we have I I hope we are moving forward, accepting the fact that they provide a an important role in what we're doing and that we can figure out a way to sort of maintain that. I think, you know, the language I put on the table that has evolved a little bit, but I think it certainly recognizes that. I think about your area up in the islands where people are accustomed to sending their kids to essentially all public schools, but they can sort of pick and choose. You know, we have said, I have said in the language I put forward that there's no limit to the number of schools you can send your kids to. But it does limit. You know, in terms of like, but the independent schools that are within that are the historic academies. And we still have to figure out elementary schools in areas where they don't exist. But it's the same thing as choice. You know, I don't I don't it's it's not in in. On paper because ours clearly says a parent chooses where in town tuition where a student goes, whereas mine would say a school board assigns students where they go.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Hey, Beth, go ahead.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I was saying, and under this language, the school boards would have to have a contracted agreement. So is a school board, this is a concern of mine, going to go through all this and designate if two kids happen to be going to that school? And we know most people who have choice don't really exercise choice. They go to the same place. The majority go to the same place. I'm thinking again of my neighbors in Essex County with that large geographic region. There might be one kid or two kids that because of where their parents work and just their life circumstances, that's the school that makes sense for them. But are they going to all that school and this district going to come to some designation agreement for two kids? That's a concern I have.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I guess I would envision what I put on the table, that there's a standard contract that is created by the state. So it wouldn't be a terrible I takeover

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: have questions about Emily?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah, I guess I was thinking in my head based on the conversations going on here about SUs and SDs. And I'm looking at Representative Vaingard's map again. And I see a definite boundary around choice towns to allow them to keep choice and lines around other towns that have choice that they don't get choice. And I'm struggling with how we define that in our

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: work, because I mean So the big issue to that is I wanted to invite Senator Bennington in since that we had an understanding of what they were doing. Would like to work off of what we have on the table, which essentially says that all school districts are operating and they all operate off of a uniform set of statutes.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Perfect. Have fun with me.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Emily Long (Member)]: It just comes back to this wall we keep hitting all the time. Yes. Yes. That's how I kept mentioning. We keep coming up against this all the time. He did mention that the Senate seems to be moving forward with theirs. If that's what we're talking about, I'm happy to have us continue that conversation.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But it is a map. I mean, are talking about a map and governance structures around it.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Understood. Understood.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So I think we will it'll be interesting to see what the AOE poses tomorrow. I think by the time we come back after our break, we may have more ideas as to how to how to You know, I. I don't think you're wrong in your complaint and concern about the time we're spending on this. Unfortunately, it also is something that we just seem to have trouble getting over. I mean, we could get over very easily if everybody would agree with me and my language.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: So I'll keep saying, you know, make me come to stun

[Emily Long (Member)]: encounter every time we try to.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So, just tell me when you're ready for that and we can just go forward. Okay. It all depends on me. Yes. But it is a of a constant roadblock, and maybe we can find a way through it that we haven't thought of yet. I hate to just keep repeating the same thing, but I realize that everybody sort of has a block that they can't get over. If I were to sort of summarize them, it would be concerned that once we approve a map, it triggers the foundation formula with sort of no ability to put the brakes on without making some changes to the law today. And I know people are thinking about that. I think we have concern about moving from choice to contracting or designation. I certainly get that. I'd like to think that we are not taking away widespread use of independent schools where they play a very important function, particularly and most importantly, the historic academies. We've got concern that this is somehow going to advance the closure of small schools at a pace that is greater than what is happening today. So we think about how we could ease that concern. Yeah.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I think I would slightly reframe that concern. It's not just that it's happening at a pace that is really banter happening today, but that it's happening without sort of local decision making. Who's making the decision? Big part of that concern.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I'll just say, that's always what comes back to. I mean, as big as closing schools, being forced to close schools or choosing to close schools, as hard as that is, it really comes back to what you've just tried to say, which is I this is hard coming out of my mouth because I've been trying not to use this term for years, but local control. I've always wanted to shift the perspective from local control to local voice. And I guess I'll go back to what I was trying to say, the fear from rural communities especially. I'm not saying this is limited to the rural communities, but the fear from rural communities is that they won't have any voice anymore. And one of the challenges that we've always encountered, and I am still coming up against, is there will be loss for communities. There will be loss for regions. There will be loss in the process we're going through. But there's loss right now as well. And so I need to be able to say to my communities, I guess I'm not limiting to the three towns I represent, but my region, because it's always related to your region, that we're doing this because this is what our goals are, and this is what we're looking forward to. So that leads me to, you keep hearing me bring up regional high schools. And I still believe regional middle high schools, I'm going stay away from comprehensive because I don't think we can create comprehensive high schools in the state without having some regional schools as well. So I'm wondering if there's a way we can look at piloting a regional high school model. Could you pick or choose a section of the state where it might work out? I want to give folks a future to look forward to when they're experiencing all their loss, because they will be experiencing loss. And I need people to be able to say, this is the future that we're working toward. I recognize the money isn't there to build. I keep hearing everybody say we're going to have to build all these brand new high schools. That's not what I believe we have to do. Not everywhere. I do believe there will need to be some, and some are in really bad shape, but some could be renovated, but we need to get moving on this path.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Could I ask you to define kind of what you mean by a regional high school pilot? What would be a forexample?

[Emily Long (Member)]: So I guess it would be a region. If you're going to pilot it, I'm just throwing this out. So I'm thinking as I'm speaking. Choosing a region and trying to start laying the groundwork for creating regional high schools that serve a larger area, where I believe that is, you kept talking about the 300,000,000 savings and all that, I actually believe where we will save money is regional middle and high schools. Because at the same time we're saving money, we're creating opportunity for kids that they don't have to get, frankly. And I'm very concerned about that. I'm very concerned that all of our small schools are high schools, middle and high schools are really struggling, especially in rural areas. So I would choose a rural area, obviously. And look at it, I keep thinking about my own high school, which has been identified, I believe, I was told by my superintendent, as a school in danger of, if it closed, it would be a public school desert. I don't want public school deserts in the state of Vermont. Want us to be prepared for this. And I feel like we're not. And so I don't know how to move forward. The idea of modeling it is one option.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I I think we all support the concept, but the reality is that in order to create a larger regional high school or middle school, somebody is going to be giving up a smaller regional high school and middle school. Do

[Emily Long (Member)]: you? That's what I guess we should be asking ourselves. What are we having to give up and what are we getting in return for giving up? And I say that across the board of all of our laws here. What are we gaining? Is it cost savings? I mean, we go down the list. We have to consider what we're gaining and what we're giving. And it's easier for me to see us gaining where I'm in that as opposed to just losing voice in local communities.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Look at what happened in Washington Central, where it's my feeling that the school board put out as absolutely good a rationale for closing two or five schools in terms of both cost savings and increased opportunities and frankly, services for kids. But they were unable to move forward with it because of local voice or local control. And so how do we, you know, we can't get beyond that without becoming unpopular. And so the question is, what level of unpopularness are people willing to tolerate in order to be able to take steps like that?

[Emily Long (Member)]: That's where the game comes in. What? That's where we have to define what our goals are, what our gains will be with the loss.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would say that that is exactly what was put on the table. It's exactly that. Know, listen, I'm not

[Emily Long (Member)]: I'm asking you go a step beyond that. Which is That's what I'm saying. Creating a regional high school pilot, which is taking us a step beyond that.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I also don't think that just because some communities are rejecting that plan means that all communities would reject that plan. I think that we are trying to create something formulaic for a state that in so many ways is not formulaic. And there are places that would probably eagerly sign up to be our pilot area and help to envision what this could look like. I also don't think that even if we had the regional high schools, that every single high school, like a minor particularly, would wanna sign up for that. There's gotta maybe be an opportunity for them to say why and defend their small practices. But that if we did do this, we might be surprised that not every community is a callous or a, what was the other? Can't remember

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: what this is. Can't Thank

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: you, Worcester. Are, sorry, didn't

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: hear. Well, you say if we did do this, but I don't know what do this is.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Pilot program, like Emily is saying, like representative Long is saying, that we might find that there are some regions that embrace this idea. And so having these different models to compare would really change the way that people think about what this does and doesn't offer. Just a question, again, because it's theory. Unless your school districts have been made larger, are there areas that could get together? Because I'm thinking around here, for example, there may be three or four high school towns in this area who might wanna get together, but they're not all in the same school district right now. So what would have to be overcome in order for them to take advantage of the opportunity? Mean, all

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: of this exists currently. Chapter

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: 11, Title 11, Chapter 11 and Title 16 lays out all of districts, but we can get together and that would be a tuitioning model, though?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, I mean, we can, new districts can be formed voluntarily.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: That's what I'm saying. It would have to be a new district. They couldn't do it in their existing school districts. You'd have to That's what my question was. If you had separate school districts, currently, you could not get together and have a regional high school. You would have to become a larger school district. Guess as you say, unless you went to a contracting model. Unless it was a contracting, tuitioning sort of model. Okay. I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: don't think anybody would want a model in which they're spending a bunch of money, but have no governance over something.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I'm just trying to think back to, it was before my time, of course, was just an infant, When in the late 1960s was when the last time it seems to me that this regional high school push happened, because that's what happened in our areas. Barton High School closed, Orleans High School closed, all those high schools closed and built Lake Region. And that happened in a lot of places around the state in the late 1960s.

[Emily Long (Member)]: You're in an era of expanding enrollment. Yes. And we had the federal government paying dollars to build new facilities if you became new in school. And I

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: was just thinking how they got together and did that. We paid all the towns paid tuition to Lake Ridge. It's a tuition model. I will also say I wrote an article on that for the Barton Chronicle, and I went through all the documents, and it was not a one year process. It like a fifteen to twenty year process, but at the time it first emerged and the doors opened. Absolutely.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: This is total side.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But I will just say, again, populations were very different when we think about the fact that U32 could accommodate without really doing a thing one to two other high schools. Today. Today.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Could you explain the philosophy behind contracting or designation? Like, why is that even necessary?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: As opposed to school choice, you mean?

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Think What do we have right now?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would say that it is, the philosophy behind it is that if you don't operate a school and you need to essentially use somebody else's school to educate your children, You need to pay them tuition, and you should do that under an agreement that both sides agree to. Okay. So that's tuition. I think what you're really asking is why not give that choice?

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Well, guess I'm just thinking like, there's certain regions that have choice, right? Because they have to.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So it's two different things. Yes. So Well

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: I just don't understand

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: They don't have to have choice. They could do designation. The challenge with having you can't have choice coexist within the same district that doesn't?

[Emily Long (Member)]: There's no way to, I mean, size the districts in those regions without an answer.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I mean, it could be to all kinds of equal housing.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: However, just thinking because currently, does every district, if the districts are have intra district choice or is that optional?

[Emily Long (Member)]: It's voluntary.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: It's voluntary still, You're not required to have intra district choice if you run multiple elementary schools within your district setting. No, they do it because most

[Emily Long (Member)]: have space. If they have space. I would even say

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: that most districts. Some do. But that's optional under our current.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So, you know, I will do my best to continually to pull us back to where we are today, the system we have today, and the pressures we're under because of the system we have today. As you know, at least my motivation and hopefully all of your motivations to sort of keep moving forward on finding a way to do something. You know, I could not be more in favor of, you know, the regional high school model, but we haven't pinned down, like, what we mean by that or what a pie would look like. And so if that's where you want to go, people need to think about what that might be. I would just caution that unless it's voluntary and probably voluntary means financial incentives that have to be paid for, It's still not necessarily going be very popular because if we just look here, are the people of Montpelier going to be all in favor of closing their high school and saying it fits to? I think that they could say they could make the same claim that smaller towns make about their elementary school, loss of community and everything else.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: But feel like there is a huge difference between someone that commutes from Montpelier to Thirty Two than someone who's commuting from South Glover to North Glover Union High School. I'm sorry, but that's just the reality. And so when we have these, if we wanna talk about educational deserts, when we have two huge five star facilities within three miles of each other, that's a totally different conversation than when we have some failing buildings that were built in the 60s that have no students and are 50 miles from each other, or exactly what I'm trying to say, but it's different. And

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: again, I mean, is merging those high schools.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: But maybe like that, if we want to merge some high school, like, I mean, maybe that is a place to start versus like starting in places where kids are literally traveling an hour by cold school bus.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Nobody has put on the table here forcing schools to merge. Now you're suggesting this. I'm not sure if you're

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: suggesting I don't know I would use the word force, but if everyone so firmly believes in this, I guess I'm saying I would start with places where it makes more sense because they're very rich in schools, that already have no schools.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, so I think what you're saying is if we're gonna go down a path of targeted, incentivized voluntary mergers, we should target them. Again, a lot of things to flush out there and how do you incentivize it in an era where we don't really have money to throw around. So tomorrow we'll hear some fresh and new ideas that maybe will churn more thinking. I would like us to continue to use what I've put on the table as a continued place to start conversations from. Wasn't, you know, Emily, your objection to just like, I read it with maps first. I mean, I get us anywhere.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Fully understand. I'm even applauding you for putting it on in that sense. I just want to make sure that we're not losing track of what our goals are by sticking our heads in the maps. One of the reasons why Can I just get up this map thing? Because I think it's really important. I look at that map First of I want to say I appreciate you asking us to stay focused on that because that makes it easier for me. I haven't given feedback from my own region on that map because I don't think it's as significant a problem, frankly, as the language behind it. So my focus hasn't been on the lines. But of course, the lines will need to be adjusted and changed. There's some challenges there, and that's no one's fault. It just needs to be dealt with. But the language behind it is much more helpful to me. And so if that's what we're working from, I really appreciate you saying that you would ask a student that, because that makes it helpful.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Was totally agreeing, at this point, the language is probably more important than the actual lines are. I agree with that.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I agree with that. Wow. But I don't find it helpful. Sorry. But the underlying legislative policies and language are more important than the lines. Because I already have some lines I'd move on the map, but that's not my focus at this point. It's the policy, because it's whatever map we end up with. I still have concerns about, also thank you for being bold enough to put out a map, but I have concerns that it's SDs instead of SUs. Our lines for our region, I mean, in the collection of like region I represent are not correct on that. And people are rejecting the SVs for the SVs. Sorry, did I say that right? People want the SVs. So for me, it's really hard to sort of think about, well, where can we go with this map as a starter? When largely I've been kind of been trying to be convinced that it's actually not a great starting place. And no offense at all.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: None taken. And you don't say?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah, yep. Think the way I'm approaching SU versus SD is what's the reality of the loss of human from SUs to SVs and what is the perception and the reality? There's two different things. And I started doing it a little bit this weekend when people were local people who were reaching out to me about this, I started asking a little bit more about what is it you feel like you will lose if the region became an SD? So let's put that question on the table. I think it's a great question. And I just think it's easier to have dialogue with my constituents when I put it from that perspective. And it often felt easier to overcome when it's laid out.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: If we're asking about what we need testimony on, for example, or questions answered, that is a big one. Those that are the groups we have in the community or certain superintendents that are advocating to maintain SUs, why? What is it you are afraid you will lose or what will you lose in an SD model? Instead of an SU model, what is it that the SUs have that is essential to I

[Emily Long (Member)]: guess the bigger question I have. Otherwise, I can't For

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: all of you is, do we really need more testimony on that? Mean, we can I get I think we've had the rural school community alliance? We've had individual superintendents talk about it. We've had lots of feedback. I think it becomes a debate within the committee as to this. And I do think your question, Emily, is a good one for us to put on the table and ask and discuss. You know, I think maybe we won't do it today. But to think about we have some more time later in the week, think about, all right, you know, as somebody said, what is the real loss in going from an SU to an SD? And is that, how do you balance that against the era that we are living in?

[Emily Long (Member)]: I think it's also important to ask what is the perceived loss? Because when I ask that, what think do the loss is? It often isn't actually real. I think there's a lot of perception about what an can and cannot do, and what an SD limits you to that isn't actually reactivity. So I think we need to understand why people are concerned about it so that we can speak about the reality.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: You don't think, though, that it is sorry. I mean, like, I guess I might be

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Advancing the conversation.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I mean, you said no starting debate today.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No. It's fine. Let's let's we

[Emily Long (Member)]: get to that.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: But, like, you don't think that it is Or do you think it is just a perceived loss that towns would no longer be able to stop another town that was now merged with them from shutting down their school? That's not one of the perceived laws. There are both real losses and

[Emily Long (Member)]: there are perceived losses.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: So I know what the answer, or one of the big answers for my district is, and that is it. It's not a perceived loss. It's a very real loss and it's a very real threat. Yep. Okay, we're not doing debate with questions. Wouldn't that be true even if they move to a larger SD? Is it just because it's not an SU anymore or is it because it's larger? It's because it's not an SU anymore. Because even in a larger SD, wouldn't that same loss of my voice mail? Well, they don't want larger SD. Just a question. Just to be clear. That's what I'm saying. I don't know if it's so much the governance or the size.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think it's the governance.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Think it's I think it's both. But yeah.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And the governance is driven by the size. Yeah.

[Emily Long (Member)]: If long

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: And if we are ever gonna talk about the elephant in room, maybe we should have Visa come in, you know, and rebut some of the things that our friends from public education came in with because there's plenty

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: of rebuttal there.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, I had hoped maybe not a fight.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I had hoped their testimony was going to be far less about age eight one three and far more about 73. So that came as I and that's a debate that can go on forever. And I'm a little hesitant to go there until we sort of

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: And I almost feel like it's not it's not even worth the fight. But I mean, it's like they threw a lot of stuff out there. It's like absolutely false. Yeah. And disingenuous at best.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: What do you think

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: was false? Well, I'd rather keep our topic to

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: the topic at hand of

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: SUs and SDs, because that's really a much more important issue for us to be discussing. Yep. So, Leanne, if I were to sort of sum up what you're saying is that the perceived or not, the fear of moving to a larger district and getting rid of the SU model is just that it's very similar to what happened in Act 46. Schools were very small towns were very concerned that we're being merged with a larger town who's going to have more representation on the board because that's the constitutional way we do things and could therefore sort of outvote a smaller town.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Right, I think outvote can outvalue, because there are real pockets of people who still want to hold on to the small town Vermont that had small classes and small schools, and that is a value that they have, that they want to fight for. So I don't think that that's necessarily a stalker. So there are ways, and I'm not going to

[Emily Long (Member)]: throw out any ideas because I don't want us to go down a rabbit hole. But we actually can develop policy to If we can identify what is underneath the fears, we can actually develop policy to try to mitigate some of those fears, I believe. And I just think we need to recognize what the challenges are, and we're moving forward. This is where we got right here in Act 46. We did. We got right here, and this is where we hit the wall and stopped. And I actually think we can move beyond the wall. I really do. So let's unpack it a little more.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I appreciate your optimism. It definitely is a wall. And again, are If we're going to move forward, everybody's going to have something that they have get over. I'll tell you right now, my district is going to get hurt by the foundation formula. But without moving to a larger governance model, they have no room to maneuver. So that's and yes. So anyway, we're sort of back to where we were. Good discussion. Probably pause here. Just to talk about the afternoon, 01:15, we are in Room 11. It's just us, but because of the size of the audience we're gonna have, we're using the bigger room. May be a few minutes late because I have to go to approach on age four, five, 42. So Chris will start to get things running. The NEA folks have sort of organized the testimony. Today's gonna be a very nice break from all of this, because what we're gonna hear from are teachers who are talking about the good things that are going on in schools that we often lose sight of.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Perhaps I will get an award.