Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Alright. You're live.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome to House Education on Friday, March 13 in the afternoon. The committee is back discussing acts 73 following our sort of let's put everything on the table. Folks have ideas. Let's talk about them.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: We've got some language that representative Taylor has prepared for us to look at and consider. And I think with that, I'll turn it over to you to introduce, and then we'll have Ledge Council walk through, and then it's basically a Q and A. Thank you. I'm gonna kind of level say here. This is Well, first of all, anybody that's expecting a map today, I'm gonna disappoint you because there's no map at all to this discussion tonight. Really, what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to focus on the policy and trying to move the conversation forward. We've been hung up on kind of an SDSU conversation for quite some time. Really, you know, the SD arguably seems more efficient. SU really protects some of the historical school and attendance patterns that have been in place for years here in Vermont. So what I'm attempting to do with this language is I'm attempting to work within Act 73, the parameters of Act 73, and allow those 18 schools that are still able to accept public tuition within the boundaries of Act 73 to continue to be able to do that within the structure of a district level. So that's what this language is going to attempt to do. This is a very friendly language. I'm not attempting to, this doesn't attempt to add more tuitioning. It doesn't attempt to add more independent schools. It absolutely is just an attempt to continue to allow the towns, the 90 towns that currently use independent schools to continue to do that. I won't guarantee I will have all the answers. There's a lot of different scenarios that come into play when we start talking about education and especially the patterns of education and how we supply education to the students of Vermont. But I'm hoping this language will get us past the SDSU roadblock that we've been facing. With that being said, Beth, I guess, what I'd really like to do as well is kind of ground everybody in 16 VSA one or have Beth ground everybody a little bit in 16 VSA one. It really speaks to the way Vermont has thought about education and solidified it in statute.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That 16 PSA one, Absolutely. Right

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: out of the back pocket.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon, Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel. We don't talk about this provision very much, but it is the first statute in title 16. And before we read about we read it, I'll just note when it was added. Does this mean something to you all?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, it's good.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It seems language that probably was developed during Act 46.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: Oh, was prior to that. This is Bergen.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Oh, Yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right on there. Act 60. Languages have added in Act 60 and it has not been amended since. Sorry. Is my giant head in the way? I actually have a very small head, so you don't have to add this space. Okay. So let's just read it. The right to public education is integral to Vermont's constitutional form of government, and it's guarantees of rights. Further, the right to education is fundamental for the success of Vermont's children and a rapidly changing society and global marketplace, as well as for the state's own economic and social prosperity To keep Vermont's democracy competitive and thriving, Vermont students must be afforded substantially equal access to a quality basic education. However, one of the strengths of Vermont's education system lies in its rich diversity and the ability for each local school district to adapt its educational programs to local needs and desires. Therefore, it is the policy of the state that all Vermont children will be afforded educational opportunities that are substantially equal, although educational programs may vary from district to district. I will just

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: note that this

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was a part of Act 60. It flowed from Brigham, which is what Act 60 flowed from. You have had case law since then interpreting Brigham. It is not reflected here. Whether it needs to be reflected or not is a policy choice for you all to make. I'm just pointing out that this has not been updated since 1997.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: You want me to just

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: let you go? Can go

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: right into the language. I think we just need to start the discussion and go from there.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we're gonna look at what is draft 1.3.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Actually, I think it would be most helpful too if we kinda just went through everything instead of stopping per section. If we just did a full walk through first and then maybe go back Because some of your questions might be answered in later parts.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just want to note that there are a number of outstanding policy decisions in this document, and I will be unable to

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: help you with those today.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you for pointing that out, both. There's definitely some decision a lot of decision left on the table. I'm hoping our committee can poll us and move this forward.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So section A is adding a statute, a section to the school board's chapter, nestled right in with things like school board roles responsibilities, electorate roles and responsibilities, school branding, your cell phone policy, etcetera. So the first section, so section five sixty four is enrollment and attendance zone policy. Start with some definitions. Attendance zone means geographic means the geographic boundaries within the district that Oh, actually, and I'm sorry. I should also say that my understanding is that this language was really developed for a future state. And so there are going to be places where there's either awkward language or unclear language because there's no new school districts to refer to yet. So attendance zone means the geographic boundaries within the district that matches a student's residence to a school or schools for the student's great band. Public school shall have the same meaning as Subdivision 117 of this title. Approved independent school means an approved independent school that is eligible to receive public tuition pursuant to section eight twenty eight of this title. And then we get to the policy section. So on and before 07/01/2027, each school board shall develop and ensure the implementation of and make available in the manner described under subdivision five sixty three-one of this chapter, a school enrollment and attendance zone policy according to the provisions of this section to ensure each resident student is afforded a free appropriate public education that has substantially equal equality and opportunity by determining a default school within the district for each student to attend. The policy shall align to attendance patterns as they exist on 07/01/2026. Is that date right?

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: That is going to be a decision point because I thought the same thing, might need to

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be 2027 at this point. Including established patterns of attendance at approved independent schools and established patterns of attendance at public schools located in other states. Residents, students who reside in a member town of a school district that do not operate a school for some or all grades on 07/01/2027. This is where it gets really awkward because what this is trying to My understanding is that what this is trying to say is that if you lived in a school district prior to any mergers that did not operate, that's who we're talking about here. But we don't have any maps to look at or boundaries to look at, so I've done my best. So resident students who reside in a member town of a school district that did not operate a school for some or all grades on 07/01/2027 shall not be assigned to a default public school operated by the district in the applicable non operating grade band. So if student lived in a school district that did not operate grades, that operated grades K through eight, but did not operate grades nine through 12, then they could be assigned to a default public school in K through eight. But that non operating grade band, this language would say you cannot assign those students to a public school operated by the district. The policy shall provide a process for such students to apply to any public or approved independent school. The enrollment and attendance zone policy shall be reviewed and updated every five years. And then section B is adding another section to the school board chapter in title 16, section five sixty five, school choice policy. Definitions, magnet school means a specialized program that meets baseline quality requirements and also provides in-depth learning in a subject area or emphasizes certain skills or experiences such as STEAM and arts education. A magnet school may be established by a school district designating a public school operated by the district as a magnet school or by an approved independent school that chooses to reclassify as a magnet school. Hardship means a set of extenuating circumstances as defined by the agency of education, evidenced by a request made by a parent guardian to accommodate a student's need to attend a school outside the student's assigned attendance zone under the policy developed pursuant to section five sixty four of this chapter. Intra district choice means policies that permitted family or student to choose to enroll in a public school operated by the school district when a school district operates more than one school per grade band. Public High School Choice means the statutory program created pursuant to Section eight twenty two of this title that allows students attending grades nine through 12 in a public high school to apply for enrollment in a public high school located outside the student's district of residence.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Just a quick question clarifying only. That's basically referring to the current public high school choice?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is referring to current high school choice, yes. Policy. Each school board shall develop, adopt, and ensure the implementation of a school choice policy to manage student interest in exercising each type of school choice, including attendance at magnet schools, inter district choice, public high school choice, and choice needed due to hardship. The policy shall address the need for a lottery or admissions criteria depending on the different choice option exercised. Policy shall be reviewed and updated as applicable every five years.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Kind of going back to, there's a lot of decision points in here. I actually think there needs to be some sections added to this. Just the timing hasn't worked out to talk a little bit more about school closures and actually about grade band closures as well. Some guardrails in there to help give guidelines on how that process could work and possibly even protect some schools. All

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: right. So I'm just sort of thinking about all the different scenarios that we have in this state. So let's take Greenland's area, Grand Isle. I'm gonna ask a question, it's awkward because we don't have the district. Okay, all right. Well, let me do it for instance then. Let's say Grand Isle was combined with Colchester, Milton, that created one big school district. When it comes to going to high school, they currently have choice. They're giving public schools as options. Well, they don't think they're doing what they want because they didn't want to travel, but realistically. And many of them which, many, well, there's not that many kids anyway, some may currently have an option or use an option outside of the district that I just created in my head. Would they still have that option? Or would it remain within the district?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So under this language, as it currently stands, as my understanding of the intent of this language, let's say you have made that decision, there's either been a voluntarily created new school district as you described, or you all have created that school district. Subdivision two here would say something like resident students who resided in a member town of a school district that existed on such and such a date and did not operate grades, whatever, shall not assign students located in those geographic areas to a public school within the district. And then you would pick up that next slide on line six that says the policy shall provide a process for students to apply to any public or approved independent school. So yes.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: I totally realize that this is a hard concept to look at, like Beth said, without having a map in front of district lines. The intent would be to people that go to Milton District, students that go to Milton District right now, their attendance zone would be Milton District. Students that go to Colchester, their attendance zone would be Colchester, allowing still that historical attendance patterns of South Hero. And then you have to start taking into account there's a lot of students from South Hero that attend South So

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: another, for instance, let's say we create a district that is large enough to contain a high school and one or two independent schools, attendance zones would continue. So I get all that, but the district would have the ability if they wanted, the board could create a intra district choice program. They don't have to, but they could. I I think we say they have to have a policy, but that policy could be restricted to your attendance zones, So, but they could have one. Yes. Yeah. So, I mean, just as if Addison County were to become a district, you'd have an intra district choice of kids who go to about the three high schools if we were still operating.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Can I ask a

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: terrifying question on that? Does an intra district choice have to be public school stuff? Could you create an intra district choice with a combination of independent and public high schools as you just suggested? Because the independent high schools aren't actually part of your school district. Well,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: that's a good question for

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: because currently inter district choice is public to public.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: That's right.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: So that

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: could be a

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: little hitch. I guess that's true. That becomes

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Something to consider.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: This language on page three, when it talks about inter district choice, policies that permit a family or student to choose to enroll in a public school operated by the school district when a school district operates more than one school per grade band.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. So it was operated at an independent school. Right.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: That's a policy choice.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, it's a policy choice. So you could have it be, well, right in this language, that's right in front of us, in fact, if you have an independent school within your district, it would not allow that independent school to be part of the interdisciplinary choice because this is a public school. Correct.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Correct. That's what I was thinking.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The attendance zone policy does allow for certain students who have historically lived in certain geographic areas to have access to any public route through kindergarten. So it depends on who the student is. Chelsea, is part of First Branch,

[Kate McCann (Member)]: they have K through A. So they have choice for their high school. They were in the same SU, which now let's say turned into an SD, they have high schools in there, but they could still send to any high school in the state because that's what they have. It's to preserve what they currently have for options of their choice.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know that I feel comfortable saying that the intent is to preserve anything. The way I read this language is that if you, as of a certain date, are a member, your domicile was in a geographic area that as of a certain date was a school district that didn't operate certain grades and provided for the education of those students through our town tuition program,

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: new school district could not assign you to a default public high school. They have to provide a process to apply to any public or approved independent school. I don't know what that process is. And the way this is written is that there is no standard process. It would be up to each school district to make their own process. So I don't know. I mean, it depends on what your intent is. If you choose to take up this language, you're going to have to play out all of these scenarios to make sure you get the language right so that you are not you don't have unintended consequences on either side. Or maybe you want unintended consequences, and that is a policy choice you can make, and I can help you.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead, Jana.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: So I think this language we're looking at says that the policy shall be reviewed and updated every five years. Is there anything that would prevent it from being updated more regularly, or would that be within the purity of the school board?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: You don't change any

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of your school board laws, right, my understanding is this draft contemplates a new governance system in So the I don't know what policy choices you're gonna make over roles and responsibilities of school boards. But under the current law, no. It would be within their purview to update it whenever they wanted. And this

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: would change it to, like, at a minimum, I think. Mhmm.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And you could add that at a minimum if you wanted to. I would say if the intent behind this language was to restrict it from being updated not more than once every five years, then you would wanna make that, you would wanna add that language.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I don't think that that is what this does. Regina Brady. So remind me, the magnet school is a definition that exists currently or this new? This is new.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's the only place that exists in the whole wide world. Yes.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: Doesn't Magnet exist in Vermont's statue. This

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: definition is only place that this definition lets. The concept of a magnet school

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: is very much alive.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And there are some school districts that use that concept. In Vermont. In Vermont. Yeah, there's like three of them in Burlington. Yes. But this definition is different. That's important. Well, I don't know if it's But I wrote it, and I didn't write the one in Burlington.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: So you do the parents in

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the early days. I guess I have another question too.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: I guess

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I have you done. So

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: I guess following up on that question, if we're looking at the concept of hardship, is that also something anything like that exists currently?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Under our current tuition program, not the concept of hardship, but there is a provision in both the elementary statute and the high school statute that allows for a school board to pay tuition even when they operate when it's in the best interest of the child. Best interest of the child is wide open. So I would say that that is And there are some other provisions for state place students, students experiencing homelessness, etcetera, when it comes to where your residence is. The exact phrase hardship, I don't think is used in Title 16. There are circumstances that allow for exceptions to what we think of, of where you live is where you go and if you tuition, tuition. But this concept, I think, is new.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: I think that understanding that the extenuating circumstances is a very broad range, looking for the agency of education to define that for the schools themselves. Now, when I think about this, have a statement right to HHB, bullying, harassment, the student can't be at that school anymore due to those circumstances. They should have a process to be able to go to a school where they can access their learning.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Currently, correct. If you are a school district operating multiple schools, the same grades in multiple schools, a district may move a child from one school to the other because attendance zones aren't a thing.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are or are not?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Are not.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that varies from school district

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: district. Yeah, sorry. It's just not a term that we

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: have to give you. Look, can I ask you then? I'll ask you. It is a school board or school district's board decision right today. Is that correct?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And it's not spelled out that way. There's nothing in title 16 that says school boards may create attendance zones. No.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: That would I guess what I'm saying is if it is up to a school board in the school district, of a school district, if they choose to send their child to another for extenuating. We have We just I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: would say it is up to the school board if they want to If they would allow a student to attend a school that is different from whatever their policy is, say. Then you also have the parent choice of pulling your kid out and sending them wherever you want on public, on your own, on personal.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: Right, of course. I was gonna say, you answered my question by restating it. Yeah, I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: think the thing is, it's almost like I look and I go, why do we even need this since current policies around the state seem to, it varies from like the school board deciding to just the superintendent deciding how to get back to our school district without the school board ever even knowing.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: And I was curious about that, and I think I asked about it maybe last week, because the school district where I taught had inter district choice. You're not required to have intradistrict choice. So there isn't consistency across the state. School districts may have intradistrict choice, but they're not required to occur. Right? Is that right?

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: That's too early, but I was talking about inter district choice.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: You're talking out of district I was talking

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: about if a child You can do it even if a child needs to be tuitioned out in your district.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: And is that for everybody or just high school, wrong? I I didn't

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: think But that if remember, an inter district choice policy could be that there's no choice.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Correct. There's not consistency currently from school district to school district regarding inter district choice.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: But I think the intent language here is that

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: there would be. There would be.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Because policy that permits a family to be.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think this language does not require a school district to have inter district choice. I agree. So if that was your intent, we would need to change the language.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Robert, you were?

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: I thought I had a question.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: I'm sure you do.

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: So you're creating all SDs.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: But as I'm reading this, the policy that each board comes up with shall align to attendance patterns that exist this year. So it's almost like a hybrid kind of model that you've you've come up with, an SD that that that still allows the places in this state

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: That's the attempt. That's the attempt here, to still allow the student Current attendance patterns. Current attendance patterns. Think the attendance of the word on the slide, look for attendance patterns to continue to operate as they are and not disrupt those 4,000 to 5,000 students that are utilizing that right now. Okay.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: So then conceivably, this has a, I guess I'll put you, the intent of this is to operate from new district boundaries. Yes. But the district boundaries could essentially remain the same. I think your intention I'm just saying To create a tenant

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: framework of Act 73, no. I mean, we're looking at for efficiency, 73 is trying to accomplish.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: I totally understand your intent, but I'm not questioning that. But I'm saying

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: You're wondering if this gets there.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: As it's written today, could actually mean that there are no significant changes to our district boundaries.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: This is intended to act with ACCEPT D3. It's not intended to be a standalone.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: He said earlier it's a future stand.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: Again, I understand that your intent. I'm just talking about the language.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Think the language may change only.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Right. It might. It might need some language in there to insert it into Act 73 in a way that functions, which, again, would be a a decision point here on, on how that would operate and and be put in there. But the intent is definitely to to operate this within Act 73 and larger districts. Ideally, we can make districts that would align with historical attendance patterns 99% right there. I mean, and that would be that would be an ideal situation. I'm not sure if we can. Alright.

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: Although this might give some nimbleness to local boards, their communities, and their geography.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: You know, I'm not I'm not spelled out in here too. Just some thought processes that have been having that have been happening is, you know, within each attendance zone, having advisory boards still within that attendance zone to keep that local impact a little bit more. That also could be a decision point.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Brady? So I'm trying to understand conceptually. So if it's a future state with school districts, you have one district board. You don't have

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Correct.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: A board. You No, have one board. So then you have a board that might be depending on the attendance zone patterns in their district, they might be overseeing public schools and independent schools in two different sets of districts?

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: I don't know if they'd be overseeing. I think that maybe it'd be an advisory board work within the larger school district board. It's a similar And again, it's not laid out here, but in my thinking about it, it is very similar to the original four fifty four, I can't even remember at this point, where there was advisory boards within that framework.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: But the district board, the governing board, and the one that people vote for, they don't vote for an advisory board. That's likely. So that district board now has a whole lot of legal responsibilities over only the public schools in their district, but they don't have any authority over the independent schools.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Don't now, and they wouldn't have in a designation model. They wouldn't have in a country.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Maybe you can ask it better. I'm trying to Well,

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: no, not entirely jump in, so feel free to take this back. I think there is a difference in what we're seeing here versus what Chair Conlon introduced because

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Speak to him.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Sorry. Yeah, but no, I mean, specifically around the sort of access to approved independent schools, the theory behind designation or contracting definitely builds in some degree of oversight or what that relationship looks like. And that appears to be absent here, think is

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: what And

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: maybe Beth

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: would I would say, so I think what you're trying to do, Chris, is one, maintain the idea of districts. One of the big concerns with districts for some people was that my proposal eliminated choice. But this would maintain choice. I think I continue to be where you always hear me ask, well, how can two different ways of delivering education exist within the same district? I'm guessing that is one of the reasons we looked at 60 B. It's a one. Did I say that right? Yes, just to sort of reaffirm that we do things in a different way here in Newmont, and that just because two may exist in the same place doesn't make it the legal problem. It's, I mean, I, you know, better than option certainly.

[Robert Hunter (Member)]: I was just gonna say, to to Brett Brady's point that at least down in Taconaco Green, which is a big, big school system, right? They pretty much work hand in glove with the independent school there

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: for a part.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Can I ask you a clarifying question? Maybe we can say if you wore hand in glove, but the school board is responsible ultimately for the dollars, huge amounts of dollars, but they don't actually see the accounting and have the books, you know, about expenditures in the independent schools like they do in public school. I'm thinking if I

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: was a school, I've been on

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: a school board, I'll probably be in one again, under punishment. How as a school board member in this future state of districts, do I and again, we're not going to budgets locally then, but I'm going to guess people will still care about funding and property taxes in the future state. How do I explain the budget and the state of affairs in a place where I say, well, I know the minutiae over here, and we actually made changes and moved things. And over here, all I know is a top line number. I can't change and maneuver things based I around the

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: would like to speak

[Kate McCann (Member)]: with that.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: But isn't that true even whether it's an independent school or not? Because a lot of our public high schools in my area receive tuition dollars because of choice. Kids in Concord, where I'm from, no longer have a high school. Some of those kids go to Danville. The school board in Concord has no control over what's happening at Danville any more than they do at Saint Jay Academy. So if

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: they do pay the tuition of

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: different schools. Have a different set of rules. But as far as that school board having oversight, they don't have oversight where they tuition their kids to. Public oriented.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Summarize this a little bit. If you look at what I proposed, the only change from today in terms of oversight is just that you have a contractual relationship. It doesn't open up books unless that's part of the contract. We're independent. The difference between that and what exists today is just the existence of a contract. I think that this is just sort of continuing what we have today. To

[Kate McCann (Member)]: go back to Ray's point, it's a little frustrating, right? Because it's making it sound like we currently districts have oversight when they're tuitioning currently to these same schools And they don't, and they haven't for two hundred plus years, and it's been operating perfectly flawlessly. These places have been creating quality outcomes, but we keep your, you're saying that you want the control of that, but you're making it sound like we currently have the control of them, which we don't. And I wanted to just make it clear that you're making an assumption like it's already existing, but it's not.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Obviously, I find that to be one of the problems with our current system. We don't. Plus we don't have same dollar symbols. There may

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: be some Let's not have a discussion about a statement of

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: flawlessly imperfectly.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Just to kind of answer the discussion in Beth's comment, I think what everyone's saying is true, but the difference is a public system tuitioning to another public system, like all of those books are transparent. So there's a public transparency that exists across the public system.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Which is a little separate than the school board having an oversight.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, it's a credit that

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: there's still- It's pushing the public skills out of state in another state,

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: and you certainly don't have any oversight or control either. In

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: this language, the intent is to move the conversation away from the 4,000 students focus to the 84,000 students in the state of Vermont. And and when we start talking about the the the level that we're we're just talking about, we're not focused on the bigger picture here. And the bigger picture is Act 73 and student outcome for 84,000 students in Vermont.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I just wanna appreciate whether I disagree or agree with any of this, the fact that trying to find a path for this committee to discuss moving away from SUs and maintaining choice in some sort of way, but with some guardrails. But that's kind of the goal here.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: With the understanding that there's a lot of decisions to make, right? Lieutenant Long.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: So now I'm going to go to your goal, which was creating new district groundings. I'm going to sort of throw a scenario out. And Chair Conlon, you're the one who made me think about this, and some comment you made. But a new district boundary attendee. Is that what we're calling the district boundary? The new district boundary could conceivably have students having access to different operating structures within that boundary. Some students may be part of a community that has nine twelve choice, and some students may be part of a community that has no choice whatsoever. Is that an accurate? And I will just say, and if that is not your goal, does it mean then that the district boundaries would have to be drawn around those with the same choice opportunities.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: No, I don't think that they would have to be drawn around the choice and the opportunities.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: So then my first scenario is correct. A district boundary could have some students having access to choice and other students not having access to choice.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Not necessarily. There could still be intradistrict choice students within college schools.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Actually talking about the

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: choice of magnets. Trying to preserve.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: I'm only referring to the choice that you said you're trying to preserve for the that's in, so that's today. I think the answer to that is theoretically yes. That's all I want.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But you could have, if the district choice policy is we're not making any changes in That's what I'm trying to that operates currently.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Unless we require internal structure. Right. Which I'm open for.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: Completely agree. Yes, so that's an explanation.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I don't know if there's any way to talk about this right now, so this is maybe, but

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: I

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: can I'm also trying

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: to get a sense of where if another one of our goals is efficiency, and I think one of our common interests is regional middle of high schools, are we locking in things in ways that will run counter to that goal? Will this encumber the opportunity to have some more regional middle and high schools if we kind of preserved everything. I don't, I guess I'm

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'm assuming it's a rhetoric question I don't know. I

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: yeah. Guess that's where the map matters. But you

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: know what

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I mean? I'm not saying that to say like the academies, my mind, those are also the regional middle and high schools, but there are parts of our state and other schools and other things at play in places that I worry we sort of freeze time while we continue to lose students and we have a goal of more kids under fewer roofs, we sort of are working at Yeah, loss

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: just kind of extremely off the cuff. I would just kind of say that I don't think us having regional high schools is tied to the number of students that are actually utilizing independent schools right now. I don't think that that amount of students is going to prohibit us from doing a regional high school if those students continue on their attendance pattern that they're on now.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I guess to me, it depends on the map and in the areas, because I know we had some of this goes back to another session. So the committee doesn't have a of background, but we have places in the state where students are driving past one or more school to go to the

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: No matter this language right here, that's where we are right now anyways. We don't know even within a map that we're looking at districts right now. We have no idea where regional high school would go.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Let me just try and think through with the language in here and comprehensive regional high schools. When couldn't the magnet school definition, what a magnet school is, that to me is what we hope for the best out of a regional comprehensive school.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: I definitely think it's a very specialized Yeah, was a it specialized specialized?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Or because I thought it was like arts and stuff like that? But I think as a policy decision, we might be able to use some of that to kind of have the, what we're shooting for, for these comprehensive regional public. You know, it was

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: a simple comprehensive regional high schools that I've heard. I think we kind of I had decided a long time not to use that term, because it's very specific. But regional middle and high schools was what I would have been advocating for frivoling many, many members. But why wouldn't you want them to have that? They certainly want them to have

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: would say think you know to add to that, there is the provision within this language that has us review this every five

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: minutes. Sorry. Could I just ask why magnet schools were brought up in this altogether? I I think I know why, because they have a intradiscal choice thing and you've established that in school already, but

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Well, I think that, well, to me, does a couple of things. I think it helps possibly protect some of the smaller schools. As we are looking forward, if the smaller school will become a magnet school, that could drive attendance patterns to that school, protect that school. And we're also looking at opportunity for all students.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, think statutorily, I assume the reason is. Let's say you've got district A and district A includes big high school and outside of the little high school, and now they're operated by the same school board. That school board decides to make a little high school a STEM focused magnet school, whatever they want to call, we don't say next week, but that's to give it a definition that I would imagine, so that if you're having an inter district choice policy, I'm still not sure if they want to get that, We can create it back to school right now if we want. I just need to think about that a little further.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: We appreciate it.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: This is really a good faith effort to move this conversation forward away from the roadblock that we've been facing. Like I said, I've said in committee a few times, we know the elephant in the room on some of these discussions we've been having. I also, again, I'll go back to that. I think that working within the framework of Act 73 and moving to an all district model for efficiency purposes is a great path. But I also want to make sure that we are keeping the historical education patterns of Vermont alive. Not students learn in the same environments the way that they should learn, so they need opportunity to be able to have the environments that they need.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: And if I could just add, mean, I've meant that, but appreciating your efforts and putting this on the table. As you're still, because I know you yourself, you haven't even had time to think about the details. So I would ask for you and others to think about the main concern that I have so far. And I'm going to go and look at this more clearly. I just need to have time to sit with it for a sec. And read some of our statutes that are current. But your intent has been very clear that you want to redraw district lines. And that I appreciate. So I'm going to do it from that perspective. And I'll just say that I am not comfortable with having district lines drawn around communities, schools it is really panels now for the school districts, current school districts that have different operating choices. So certain kids would have some opportunity and other kids wouldn't have the same opportunity all within the same district. So you clarified what you said, that you support inter district choice, But what that means, because you're not going to take, it's unlikely that your intent is to allow it to stay, choice to stay, where it currently resides. The only way to create inter district choice if everybody gets the same is to expand choice in that district. And I'm just saying that's how I'm seeing this. And I'll just go back and say the last thing. I always say, I've said it for years and I'll continue to say it over and over again, especially in a larger district. I think the goal is for many, many people to say it, I'm not the top one, do not all have the same access to choice. And even when they're given the opportunity for choice, they won't all have the same access. And so I'm absolutely hearing your goals, and I'm trying to fit them into this.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Any questions for legislative council? What do we have? Go ahead, Doctor. Jana Brown.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Just one more small question. When we talked about putting a date, the attendance zone pattern that was referenced in here, I think has a date of July 2026. And maybe this just isn't a thought that has been fleshed out yet, but does that I'm not sure how to ask this, but so precisely the attendance zones that exist on that date? Does it have to be, When we saw those maps of where kids are currently attending schools, obviously some of those lines are a lot thicker, more solid than others. If you have three kids that are going to a school in an unusual attendance pattern, does that get frozen in as well? Or is there some kind of threshold for what constitutes a pattern?

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: You know what I mean? With the attendance zones, those are No, I don't think that there's nothing that's frozen, because the intent is for Milton. Milton might have the one offs that go to different places, but the Milton students would continue to go to Milton. You might still have those one offs, actually.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Yeah, I guess that's what I was getting at, the kind of strange

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: And some of those are due to hardship.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, that's

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: what I would say.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I might point out that ultimately, though, would be up to the school board to decide where students attend. So a school board could see those one offs where, just like Berlin over here by the train station that's closer to Montpelier High School than it is to U32. They could make that decision and say, well, those can be geographically closer. So the question is, does this bill freeze attendance zones

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Right, in what I'm trying to say.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's a question for legislative council.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Or is there like a threshold that might

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: actually be a question back at us,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: which could

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: be a policy

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: decision. I'm wondering, with the way the language is written now and the existing powers of school boards in a newer, larger district, Does the language here freeze in time for attendance zones?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It requires a policy to align attendance patterns as they exist on 07/01/2026, but then it asks for it to be updated every five years. So I don't think this language is clear. I think it's ambiguous. And so you would need to make a choice. We would work on the language to make it clear.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: That's not a huge question at

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the moment. It's just a point of curiosity.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, appreciate it.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Just trying to continue on with your thought, trying to clarify mine. So we're not locking the attendance patterns and for three kids go to Williamstown. But what we are trying to say is that if Chelsea, Tunbridge have choice, they get put in a bigger district that has high school in it, that opportunity for them to choose the high school they want to go to public or otherwise, they retain that in perpetuity?

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Well, I believe everything would be on the five year In five year. Five year review. I think this it'd be the same with the attendance zones. Always that opportunity to possibly adjust depending on patterns and and needs, really. For the for the creation of a spectacular brand new comprehensive franchise. I just I'm hoping, this is a framework, right? This wasn't coming to the table ready for a signature or rubber stamp. This was coming to the table for this conversation to happen.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Just like me, but I put my. And

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: I'm hoping we really do some thinking about it and look at this in a way, not that how can we not make this happen, but might we be able to work within this framework to do some tweaking here and there that would make people feel comfortable in this room to continue to go forward? Appreciate that. Representative Brady?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I'll go back to my paper. So I'm trying to think about how this works with the foundation formula, because this is all within the construct of Act 73, right? So which is that we are on a pretty fast bullet train here to a foundation formula. The foundation formula is distributed at the district level. I guess I'm looking at the lunch council. So board now has this money that's quite locked in. Not, Oh, actually we need more this year. And they have to manage that money to all of the students in the district and a range of portfolios of schools. They might, I I mean, know it's not popular, but I think part of, honestly, what we're

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: talking about is they're probably going to have

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: to close some schools because, I'll go back to Patrick Green's testimony in January, Vermont cannot afford to operate the number of schools we have for the number of students we serve. There are efficiencies we can get from district consolidation, but they pale in comparison to the efficiencies realized at the school level. So I'm trying to figure out then what are the ways that board can and cannot maneuver, and what are the implications then for the different schools and the different operating or delivery systems within that? A board can close a public school in their district, but presumably not an independent school. So I'm pretty lost on how this would work with a foundation formula that's set at the district level.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would just say it just helps at all, that's what it does. That foundation formula of the money follows the student. Right. That's not saying that. But what you're saying is that remove

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: If money follows the student, but we're not giving kids a voucher. Our foundation formula is not a voucher system. We're not giving families a check for $15.33 and saying, here, go where you We're saying, This is the amount. District, you get it, you manage to the money. So I actually think that's quite different.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: But it's based on students.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Yes. But ultimately, the school district gets that money, and that's it. That's what they have to work within to operate all those schools.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I was speaking of tuition that under Act 73.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Oh, variable rates. Oh, tuition, no, no, but still they

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, you go to under Act 73, independent school has to accept the money for

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: all the students. Right.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I see what you're saying. But it's a lump sum amount of dollars they're paying next to.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: If your new district has, maybe, again, this is something I know we don't all agree on, has maybe too many small schools in it to continue to be viable, all those schools to continue to be viable, even function with the foundation formula amount, then what does the board do? What can they do? And what might they do?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's I

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: gonna happen no matter what with the foundation formula. Schools are gonna have to make or districts are gonna have to make the adjustments to work within the allotted money. And it's going to organically have to work itself. But

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: way it was But they did act 73 said about the district's coverage.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Money's not going to the school, it's going to

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: the district. From

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the number of students in the office. Correct. So

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: the district will have to figure it out. So

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we had a testimony from the Burlington business manager about how they sort of operate on a foundation formula that they allocate the dollars. I think the part that probably folks aren't traveling with is that you don't really you know, the money that would go to an independent school is gone, it doesn't get, it's that lump sum of dollars you can't play with. Whereas the other lump sum, can allocate money to this school or that school, public school within the district, as the board and advisory groups see fit. So I think that's kind of one of the sticking points here. I would just say the same thing under my scenario as well.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Would say it's also the same thing whether they're paying tuition to an independent school or a public school because they got to pay that tuition payment off the top and they can't play with that money. If we commission our kids

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: to Danville, wouldn't be able to close it.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: No, the money following the kid and then having to accept it and not being able to play with the money is true no matter where your tuition is.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: If you're sending a bunch of kids to out of state, because that's where the public school is, then they write that money.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: And I saw it happen even where I taught. You had to pay that tuition bill to Lake Region off the top. You had no control over that part of your budget, and then all you had left to play with was done after your tuition payments.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: But that's all in

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: one. We were not in In same the future state, you should be in the same district. But if you're still tuitioning in some way, the type of school you're tuitioning to doesn't impact you not being able to have any control of

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: that money.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: But we're talking about two completely different systems. And you cannot look at it from that perspective. That's all I'm saying.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you, lots of thinking about. Thanks. I do appreciate the efforts here. I hope you all come up with some more questions or thoughts. Yeah. So we will close then, just say, so next week, the floor is gonna be long, most times, we don't have anything on the agenda addressing these things. I'm sure that it's not the only bit we're gonna be looking at. And so we just got to be ready to focus and work.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Are we going to have floor

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: dispensations? If we need to not be on the floor, we absolutely have floor dispensation.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: To never get on the floor again.

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: When those belts go off.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: It's fine to me, I'm happy to run-in like an abrupt, so.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: It was Peter's fault

[Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: that way.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: It was many, many.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Alright. Good, we'll stop here. Look forward to seeing everybody back here on Tuesday. Tuesday.

[Emily Long (Member, House Majority Leader)]: If we're not on the floor