Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Hi. Welcome back to House Education on Wednesday, 03/18/2026. Committee continues to discuss moving forward on achieving some of the priorities of Act 73. Did want to, before we start, to sort of give the committee an update as to what's occurring outside of our committee. So, House Human Services has been dealing with pre K. They're going to have language that will come to us to look at. It is not, I don't think, proposing any radical changes to much of anything. One of the things that they're trying to address in it is equity of access, especially in the Northeast Kingdom where there's very little access to pre k. Not sure if that's just there's nobody out there to provide pre k issues. Say because of providers? Yeah. So and maybe some funding changes. I think what we'll end up looking at is something that will need some understanding of is it going to put more burden on the education fund rather than less. Again, special education is sort of on hold awaiting the study that's gonna do be due back in December. This is a study that JFO is overseeing a contractor on. CTE is the other big one. Commerce continues to work on that. Are they have time because the there's a CTE bill coming over from the Senate, which doesn't have much in it. It's just intent language, but it's a vehicle for them to be able to take a little longer. They, at this point, have really only sort of coalesced around, let's say, an order to update the rules by the State Board of Education, which everybody seems to be in strong support of, and then maybe maybe a task force to study, like, alright, how are we gonna deal with governance funding of CT in future? That's a big unknown that still probably won't be decided by the end of this session. That's that's kind of a big one. I I should have lived lived with the concern that we could, you know, really struggle and all that and find out that, you know, ultimately, CTE becomes the biggest challenge that we can't overcome in order to have a foundation for how it works. One

[Emily Long (Member)]: more of those unknowns.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. Which is to say that, you know, the unknowns, I think, continue to be a bit of a block for many people moving forward with something more definitive. Period.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah. On the CTE piece, I I appreciate it. Was that it on your updates, by the way?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I don't want to cut them off a little more. On the CTE front, continue to feel concerned about even updating rules at this point in time, time and effort into task force and updating those when we're not sure whether, or I guess I'm not sure, whether the education committee and seeking these education, whether we are going to get behind what I have heard a lot of support for, which is regional middle high schools. And my goal, I'm talking personally, anything else, but my goal is always then to increase programming for students in middle and high school CTE programming. And I continue to be quite supportive of regional middle and high schools for many different reasons that I've said it many times about moving forward with the task force about funding and all of those things when we're still kind of unsure about the direction of regional middle and high schools feels premature. It's almost like, does that drive us in the direction as opposed to us driving the direction? Have a higher level of goal, what I want

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: to see for our kids. Let's see what the language says. It's not going to bypass us, but it I will be

[Emily Long (Member)]: understand that. But I've always had questions

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: about

[Emily Long (Member)]: the validity of all of our task forces and our study. I want us to be absolutely certain what our goals are. And at this point in time, when this conversation keeps coming up, my goals feel a little more fuzzy around from the past. This has always been an issue for us. However, we deliver and fund. And I think things are changing now. And I think they're changing because needs are changing. And access needs to change with those needs that are changing. CTE is a different animal than it was

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: even years ago, even five years ago. That's the of the status of those big questions that continue to sit out there as unknowns. Alright. We have to to continue down a path. We're gonna continue down path that we put in front of us yesterday. We need, therefore, to discuss in detail two things. What are the boundaries of our CISOs? So that's just blind drawing. And two, what are the responsibilities of our CISOs in terms of moving us toward newer, larger districts. We'll have to start figuring out how we wanna put that in language, but let me just throw this as an exercise. Just please just sort of accept in a world in which this is where we're headed. And we say, okay, you are in charge of bringing people together to form newer, larger districts. What parameters do we wanna what guidelines do we wanna have that says these districts need to be?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Roughly 4,000.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Roughly 4,000 students. We'll put that out there as one thing.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: And as practical.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes, these are, I mean, there is nothing in here that mandates anything. Let's be very clear. This what we are mandating our conversations and goals.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: So there would still be room for, there was a small district that was like, We have an elementary, we have a high school, it's never gonna be 4,000, there'd be room for them to argue they can stay alive? Yeah.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: You're gonna have to. Only the legislature can ultimately put in place those changes. More importantly, we also need to think about what is the process gonna look like to get there. Maybe next year's job. Yes, but Leanne, there's a lot of nobody at the end of the day. Okay.

[Emily Long (Member)]: It is literally, as we spoke about yesterday, putting off to facilitate conversations within their season. Is that correct?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. Other thoughts?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I'm not sure how to word it exactly, but if there is, and I think there's pretty wide agreement on moving toward regional middle and high schools, maybe there needs to be some way to consider what the existing possibilities of regional middle and high schools would be, including career and technical centers.

[Emily Long (Member)]: That's why I said you kind of build it around that. Should that be part

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: of the

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Should that be part of those merger conversations? Well, one

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: of the reasons when I was making the map that I just presented, I was thinking of the tech centers is, A, because we've talked so much about the value of our tech centers, especially going Vermont, but also because aren't many of them already attached to really high quality general education high schools?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I can't tell you about whether all these high schools are any better than other I high know,

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: and the two that I'm aware of in my area, although I will say North Country is in its own boat for maybe needing a new building. But the facility itself was great. Green Mountain Tech Center is attached to Lemoyle, which seems like it's thriving. So those could be regional high schools. Those are just two examples of this, Kate.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So what I wrote down is said goal of regional high schools with improved access to CTEs. Right. So CTEs. Yeah.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: It's important. Programming. Yeah. I feel like another part

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: of the conversation that sort of has been talked about throughout the years is like, how can we get our CTE students also throughout the day to be a bigger part of our general education community? And so having them in proximity to each other allows that flexibility. Or general education kids to try out something CTE is about full time commitment.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Which is why I keep saying programming instead of centers. Yeah, yeah. I think it's about programming. Because they can exist in many places. Some of the programming exists in many places.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. And I think Leland Morgan great. Like for a bird, your kid, your kids have to travel. Joshua, is that okay? Okay.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: It was when I went down. Okay. Because I was gonna go on with the conversation, but we're not hashing that out here, so it wasn't necessary to drag it further. I'm trying

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: really hard to grow.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So think about it this way. These theses are agents for change. What is the change that we want them to try to create in their areas? So we have said districts, to the extent practical, of roughly 4,000 students. They have said, with a goal of them promoting the idea of regional high schools and middle schools with improved access to CTE programming. And so, as we all like to do, I'm going take that back to my general area where I live. And this would work because they need to be thinking about a regional high school, a middle school, like a phase two to three. I appreciate that. No, not the words you're right,

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: but special ed access and development, to do more, better, insert word here. I don't know, we talk about what is the active work, is it? And one one seventy three, right? To maybe try and implement it with more fidelity, two of the thesis.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, I think, you know, right here we're talking about more specifically about creating the goal. We're on the goal of creating newer, larger districts to build scale. I think what you're talking about is one of the absolute goals we want of CSIS, which is to improve access to special education services at a lower cost.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: I'm just thinking like if we're putting these things, what do we want the CISOs to do? Might as well, even if it isn't part of the Act 73 verbiage, still put it in anyways.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. And so as we move on to the role of CISOs, in the language we had yesterday, which said, it said a CESA must or or the members of the CESA must say that the CESA has to do the following three out of six, we we could say we gotta do consolidation talks and special education, improving special education services, so that's where it has to be.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Think we should just add on the financial, just tell them what to do.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes, and that is an option. To mandate it rather than say, pick three and have at it. I think that we would mandate newer, larger district conversations. I think we've heard time and time again that the real opportunity for savings is special ed services. So I think totally support mandating that.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Regional.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Back office services seems so logical. Just wondering too, as Josh was talking about Act 173, and I guess I was thinking of not just implementation of fidelity, but also professional development.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So how are we tied

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: to the AOV? I guess that's my question, is it tied to the AOV or should it? Well, I was just thinking about, I mean, we're now ballistic to all six. So I think what I would say is we would mandate some, but then you gotta think about the capacity of a brand who sees it, what they're able to do. But we know where the opportunities are. It's also professional development. Especially when you're talking ACL-one hundred seventy three, a lot of teachers out in the field say, Help me.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: And you mandate them all, pick the two or three that are, this is what you start on day one, and then a phase in timeline to then you have to start working on this one by this time. And they're all important, but which are the most important, right? So then your phase and approach to all of it doesn't feel so daunting to a new out of the gate, but in a couple of years, you got your feet under here and you're able to start.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. I I where I get nervous of sort of mandating what is supposed to be a sort of a subscription service. Are you then providing them on fucking bandage?

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Right. But I think now, with what we're doing, we're taking away the subscription service idea as we go I mean, still there, but as we go along, it seems like we're using this to move things in different directions.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, we are. I would just be careful about biting off more than a CISA can chew in the initial years. Beth?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Going back to the consolidation portion of the CISA, it may not save any money, may be small, but it's a step in direction that maybe is doable. It's having like conversations to encourage like operating school districts to merge together. So, North Country has 15 school districts in it, and you operate K-eight, and you operate K-eight, and you operate K-eight, instead of being three separate school districts, you're now one school district. You operate a high school. Or where I taught in Orleans Central, the six K-eight schools were six separate school districts. They became one school district and the high school became a school district. So we went from seven to two. So it consolidated the number of school districts, didn't really make any other changes, but it'd be a start in the direction of consolidating that might not be too much to bite off in the area.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I wonder if it's even necessary to mandate because if you're going to be

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: It's something to consider as they're facilitating the conversation. I'm just saying what conversations are they having with these school districts and SUs and SBs Could be a conversation around, well, you all operate the same way instead of you being six school districts or three, maybe you get together.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: But what if they would rather get the different ones so that your

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: school district goes K-twelve? Parameters on what the CISOs are having as their conversations. That's group may say, No, we don't want do this. But say, Yeah, we'd kind of like

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: to do this, and you're facilitating or getting together to do

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: that. Taking notes, Emily?

[Emily Long (Member)]: So I guess I want to go back to what my perception of a CISA is, and that is a larger region coming together to collaborate, which has been my whole push all along, and to create more opportunities and more efficiencies. We're adding in another layer of a conversation that we're suggesting should happen. And I am in agreement with that because it is saying, this appears to be the right place, that it's a larger catchment area to have these conversations and lead them. I would be very careful about us mandating too much of the direction we want to go if we're going to actually look at it as a collaborative model. And that is what CISA is. It's collaborative. And it's bringing people together and having those goals. If we are going to go into it saying that we're going to try to protect what we have in whatever way we have it, it won't ever work. Or we may not achieve all we could otherwise, I think. And so I just want to keep in mind about the collaborative model that creates opportunities and efficiencies.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: To not be too prescriptive.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: It's not mandating that you do it, but it's facilitating. As we said, there are a lot of places who are ready to do this. They need some help doing it. And it would be efficiency.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would probably disagree with you and say, no, I would rather have them with the goal of having K-twelve systems.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Well, yes, but that I think is

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But that's why I would

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: That's down the road.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But then maybe the best thing to do is let them figure it out with a facilitator, with a goal towards efficiency. No problem with that. Further thoughts on

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Are we done with the, sorry, raised your hand, can say that.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Are we done with sort of the part of the process where we might like hear testimony? No. Okay, I am wondering

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I should say, look at it, not necessarily.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: I think that maybe there's a lot to hear about how bargaining works within a CISA and how it's worked so far on the CISA that exists, because I feel like that is gonna be something that they're gonna need to figure out. Are we gonna have different CDAs within one CISA?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I guess I'm hesitant to dive into that deeply when we have no CISAs, we have no CISA employees yet, and we do have language within our BOCES bill that does speak to that.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Okay, and CISAs really are gonna be dealing with teacher CVAs.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: To the extent that they might hire a full time speech and language pathologist to then work in the schools who might want that speech and language pathologist for one day a week in order to create a full time job for somebody. Again, I'm pretty sure the language that we have in the BOCES bill talks about mirroring the collective bargaining agreements that exist within that district.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Mhmm. And

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we'll have Beth in here a little bit, she can greater detail. But I think before we we don't have any importance. Yes.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I was just going to add that I like what Emily was saying about the collaborative approach to CSUS, but I don't necessarily think, I think it can be, The work can be prescribed and you can still work collaboratively to get there. And I think we've heard that bringing the finance stuff under one roof is going to save money. We've heard that bringing special ed is going to increase opportunities and save money. And we think that larger districts are going to save money. So I'm okay with prescribing it all. I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: think we kind of like creating. Yes, think that, so that is a list that you're making. My concern was, Rob was saying, also how about professional development?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I think we just leave those things in there and say, like Joshua said, when you get to it, consider these options too. Right.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah, yes. For your people

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: to have one.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would agree. Those are the three stars of CSIS. Special ed, finance and merger. We're just being sort of number one priority because that's kind of the part that we're talking about right now. My hope and dream, short of me being able to rule the state and say this is the way it's all gonna be, is that, between sort of and this is something that we can think about. Okay. If you fail, then what? Do we put in if you fail, then what language? Because we many of us, believe we need to get there.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So you're talking about

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: specifically? Workers. What

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: does failing look like to you?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Don't do it. Right.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Don't do it to what extent, like don't have a single merger, let some states or some districts not merge, you have many mergers, enough like, towns.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I don't know the answer to your question. You're absolutely right. Is 75%, is that to be a success? Representative Brady?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I wonder if some of it is around the size.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: And again, going back to

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the redistricting task force report and also Bruce Baker's testimony of like, there is too small, and we have a bunch of that in terms of district size in the state. And so particularly on that end, there's a If you don't, then someone else is at state boards, Away is going to Get you to pull it back, so do it. And then this is even lower than that. I'll go back and pull the exact, but I know it was a common, both the task force report and that testimony from Bruce Baker talked about. The biggest gains are in going from the really, really small to bigger the threshold.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I mean, to the extent that we could you know, find a future legislature, don't I don't know if it's I'm not too good on that stuff.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I don't know if it's a binding of future legislature, though, so much as it's parameters around.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I mean, forty six did.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: But we tried. Forty six did. That's what's

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

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We didn't do it. I think I think a little bit of heat is something we need to think about. I think that for those who might say, We gotta do more than this, they would probably argue the same. Let's speak very crisper. Go ahead. Yes, teeth. Yes. We to think about what that might look like. Great. More. So here's what I have written down. CESAs such as they exist or CESAs such as we create them will be required to work on districts to collaborate to form newer, larger districts with a goal of 4,000 students to the extent practical,

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: to

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: set a goal of those districts encouraging the regionalization of middle schools and high schools, that they will work with districts to better provide special supports for students who need them in a way that is more efficient and can save money. And they'll work with districts to find ways in which CISA can take over administration and finance duties.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Question, financial also, just throwing out there, student data management consistency.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I don't, I don't, Yeah, that's a great question. Wonder, can they, they probably can't.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Almost everybody uses PowerSchool already.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, just wondered to the extent a non LEA could be the custodian of that. That's correct. So

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: did we make a decision at some point?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We've made no decisions by the way.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: It sounds like a decision has been made even though it hasn't, that SUs are out and that we're talking about you need to have a district of 4,000, not an SU of 4,000. Like, I'm still, I want to be able to support this, but I am still plugging for that. I need this drug that doesn't want to be 4,000, but would be part of an SU. And I just don't know where they stand.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: So as I read it, Peter will correct me if I'm wrong, this doesn't contemplate taking away SUs. Just contemplates, discussion contemplates, of the 119 districts that exist under SUs, they would have to start consolidating. Nowhere do I think it says that we're going to remove SUs currently.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the answer to your question is correct. You bring up the point. It does not speak to that, but the language that I have said, and that is in my head, and it's a bit poorly, is the discussions would be about creating districts. Now, there's nothing here that mandates it. It just says to create them. I would like to keep our eyes on the prize that newer, larger districts is a goal. There's nothing in here that a CSIC collaborative group couldn't come back and say, we can't get there, but here's what we could do within the confines up at SU.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Right, and they could say we did meet your goal mostly and here's one tiny disparate that exists besides us. That could be one potential outcome.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That could be one potential outcome, but I think many of us who went through Act 46 and we sort of said, Oh, not allowed, that would be resistant to that.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: And then that's where I feel like we're coming up short, because that resistance is what I'm fighting for. Sure, but

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: there's nothing here that says you couldn't propose something like that.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Right, and for the phrase as practical is so subjective. Different people have different ideas about what is practical. For some of it, it's geography. For some of it, it's the history and culture of a community.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: To my mind, the fact that this is happening at a local CISA level would be much more in tune with that than us trying to define it.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Right, you're right. I think that's the language that gives the give in that whole concept. It's sort of squishy by design.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: That's the phrase of the day. Sweetie by design.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: So many things we do.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So do think about teeth. Now, what if we don't get there? We'll throw in a deadline. Mandatory, it's gotta be these three, and here's the list of the other things that you should be looking at. Anything else?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Even though we don't have control of it, policy and money kinda go together and bring up yet again timelines and how foundation formula interplays with this, because we could set policy timelines around this that might be in conflict to foundation. Just keeping that in.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yep. So, teeth and timeline, that becomes something that we gotta deal with.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Outside of these four walls too. Yeah.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Alright.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We'll do. We'll