Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: In your line. Okay. Welcome to House Education, 03/19/2026. For the committee's sort of thought and planning purposes, we're gonna look over some language this morning. Starting at ten, we have two amendments on h nine thirty that we're gonna need to hear. It's all we're gonna have time for. It's not like we can then pull in testimony on these proposals, which I think is gonna be one of the challenges that we may be facing. So we have two, and then we'll run through those at ten. We will lose legislative council at 10:45. So we're gonna go over some of the language we were working on yesterday. Before we do that, just so the committee sort of understands where we are and what we're doing and why. We have had a number of proposals, ideas, concepts, and plans put on the table. I'm trying to find something that can generate enough votes to move out of this committee. Up until now, I've been able to do that. That's why we're on the track that we're on. It is not all that I would want. It is not all that other people would want, such as the spirit of compromise and a political situation where we all have different ideas of what we want. And as I always say, when it comes to education, everybody's got a different idea, of party and what we should be doing. I will remind us that we are one part of a bigger, broader reform effort that also includes financing and other areas. And we are trying to not only represent our constituents, but represent our own ideas, represent the state of Vermont as a whole. And I think we've heard we've we've all heard a lot from a lot of people. Rather than doing nothing, I would like us to do something that moves the ball down the field. I think that the path we're on will both get the boats we need and get the ball down the field. Again, I would just emphasize, it's not everything every person would want here. It's not what you saw, what I put on the table. But we are all having to operate in the spirit of compromise and different viewpoints from different parts of the state. So thank you all for your patience and you're willing to contribute as we continue. Thank you. Legislative Counsel, the floor is yours to go over some of the thoughts and ideas we had yesterday in turning them into statute.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel. I appreciate you telling me why the floor is mine. Otherwise, I would have just gone on a rant. So thank you for focusing us all this morning. Okay. So what I have for you is draft 2.1 of a committee bill that I'm making an assumption will turn into your education transformation bill, which is why I have entitled it this. But so far, all we have is the work we've been doing on seesaws. So changes between last draft and this draft are in yellow. So we've made no changes to section six zero one, the policy section, no changes to the definition section in six zero two. Six zero three, no changes here. No changes there. We are going to jump to page six, line 16, section six zero four, Powers of Seesaws. So I will just say, I took pretty verbatim notes yesterday as you all were talking, and this is what I was able to put together from those notes. I think this is a great place for you to be able to see where you want and then spring off of it to make further refinements and changes. So by no means am I suggesting that this language is the ending point of your conversation yesterday. So subsection A talks about the powers granted by law to a seesaw. And what I've done is, remember we had that list yesterday of six items? Mhmm. I've moved three of those items. Well, yeah, three of those items up into the body of subsection A. So it now reads, in addition to any other powers granted by law, a CSUS shall have the power to provide educational programs, services, facilities, and professional and other staff that in its discretion best serve the needs of its board members wide open. And then we're giving some examples, including professional development, curriculum development, and transportation. So that's up still in May. That's an option for them, But you've enumerated some of those options to help them out. CISA has to follow all applicable laws, including special education laws. And now we're on page seven, line four. At a minimum, CISA shall provide services in the following areas to its members. Special education, including implementation and maintenance of tiered systems of support and the provision of low incidence, high cost services. That's what I came up with based on our conversation yesterday. I think you can fine tune that however you see fit. Business and administrative services and union school district creation, consultation and facilitation. So those are the things that a CSAC has to provide to its members.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. I

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: can check this myself, but I'm going to

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: ask

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: you. The language that you added in here under one special education, does all of that align with the Act 173 and very specifically? And the reason I'm asking that is because we've had testimony from both the secretary and from the CSEA all saying that Act 173 is supported in the way we should go. And so I just want to make sure that we're enveloping that perspective, even though the law has not been fully informed.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would encourage I'm going to give you a non answer answer. But I would encourage you to get feedback from the field on specific language that you want related. Implementation of Act 173 is a moving target. There was a lot in Act 173, including a finance change that you are undoing with the foundation formula. So if you were to just say including implementation of act 173, I think that's too vague and ambiguous. So I used buzzwords that we talked about yesterday. The tiered systems. The tiered systems of support is one of the areas that I have heard. That was one of the changes in Act 173. That is absolutely an area where I am not gonna be able to give you the best language. I think you should get feedback from the field on exactly what that should say.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Great. That's really helpful.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah, I think that we should think carefully about the language here. I think the provision of low incidence, high cost services is a good addition. I'm not sure about being so specific about implementation of multi tiered systems of support. Kate?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: It doesn't relate to the special education.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Go ahead. Should I wait?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: It doesn't relate to special education.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. Hold off on that.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Just a word question. Should it be provision of or provision for? Just a word question.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Oh, no. It's okay.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Provision of it or provision for load incidents? Again, we're gonna wordsmith it, so it doesn't really matter.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We'll get

[Kate McCann (Member)]: it from the field,

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: from the experts. So

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: this requires the CISA to provide it, but still, again, it doesn't require a member to utilize it.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. Oh, yes. Was I supposed to add language about

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, just that's for clarification, Jana. Yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. There's more language coming related to Union School District creation consultation and facilitation that is very prescriptive. So if it's not related to number three, yes, I would say this language requires revision of, but does not require you to take advantage of. I can also Oh, sorry.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I can respond to the provision of versus the provision of if we want to have that conversation.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't think it'd be Not right now. Because the language

[Kate McCann (Member)]: is gonna change anyone. All right. I do know the answer to that.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: I hope you did.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Not to wordsmith a little bit more. We say shall provide services. I wonder if we should say that it shall offer services.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: For or of? I think it needs to be the provision of The low cost, instant, high cost services, are you

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: saying that those are the permissions or are you saying that we are providing something, the instance of low I just want another one word answer. Well done. I got it. Okay, I'm gonna keep it. I hear exactly what you're saying, Rebecca.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I hear it.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Would it be I know we're helping people get it. At some point, we have to. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to say, this is for the community to discuss, at a minimum, AICSA shall work with member districts to provide services, or is that stating the opposite since that's what I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think by saying offering services in the following areas, we leave it open to, are they the ones hiring someone who will be the employee carrying it out? Are they providing guidance to the school district in that area? Again, you have a BOCES that is up and running that may be a good resource for you on some of this language for what they would like to see in order to be able to function. No further changes in this section. No further changes anywhere else in those these language. We're gonna jump all the way to brand new language. I'm scrolling past all these conforming amendments of changing Oh, I should note, Ways and Means is taking up an amendment to your miscellaneous bill today regarding the fees for background checks. And in that amendment is an additional amendment to take out all the both CCSA language from the miscellaneous head bill.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Great. Okay, so we're gonna jump

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to page 19, section 11. I'm sure that this could use some more work, but again, in order to provide you a starting point, I've added some language that is prescriptive about how the new seesaws you are creating get up and running. So within thirty days of the passage of this act, each member SU board of each seesaw shall appoint a person to serve on the board of directors. And then within forty five days of the passage of this act, the superintendent of the SU with the highest aggregate daily average membership of each seesaw shall call a meeting of the directors at which each seesaw board shall elect a chair and other necessary officers. Now they can run. But you have given them And that timeline is all policy. Took it from That is closely aligned, if not exactly aligned with the timeline for a new supervisory union. If the state board creates a new supervisory union, then within thirty days, there's a certain meeting. The first meeting is held. And then fifteen days after that, I believe, is when they elect chairs and other officers, etcetera. So that's where I borrowed that timeline from. It's all policy for you. But I think without putting some sort of timeline in there, folks are gonna be left to their own devices as to how quickly they start moving on CSA. And then page 20, line four, we're out of the CISA reader assistance heading, and we are now in a new reader assistance heading, Union School District Exploration Information.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Should I pause for a quick second? I guess you can think about it, but are there any sort of initial reactions to the thirty days, forty five days? I personally think that that provides a sense of urgency that is warranted.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: When do we expect, when are we gonna call for the passage of the, like when, is it we're going to be in the summer, right? Is it going to be upon passage or is it going to be I July 1 or

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: would say we'll probably do July 1.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Certain times of the year, and that's usually

[Emily Long (Member)]: a good thing than others. I want

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: us to get it done. Think that's hoping that we will have passed the sale. Yeah, of course. Going to be here.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Paul's fixing.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, best practice is that we put a date certain on

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: here.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we don't The bill has to be effective. So you could put 07/01/2026. You could put 07/02/2020, you know, like whatever. I think that date certainly would be better than passage of this act, but we're starting with this. Okay. Union school district formation, exploration, creation, etcetera. I think this could use as much work as you want it to have. This is a scaffolding to get you started. So facilitator. And I'm open to word choice here, obviously. We'll take our time through this. And I've done this all in one section. As you add details to it, maybe we need to break it out into different sections. So facilitator, each seesaw created in the seesaw sections shall employ not less than one union school district formation facilitator, we're just gonna call that person the facilitator, who shall be responsible for organizing and facilitating study committees to study the advisability of forming a union school district. Study committees. Each facilitator shall group school districts within the Seesaw's member SUs together to form study committees to study the advisability of forming a union school district. The facilitator shall group school districts together according to the following criteria. Total average daily membership of school districts forming approximately 4,000 students as practical. School districts shall be contiguous and school districts on the same study committee may be members of different supervisory unions.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I have a question about that. The school districts shall be contiguous. That means in the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: same area, right? Touching. Touching.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: That's a dumb question, know. So that's not my question. My question is, I had a community member reach out to me this morning and say, can the non operating districts all form together to be one district, even if they're not touching? Possible. But is there a way that that would be possible that non operating districts could be one district of 90 towns?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Sure. There

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are already non contiguous districts.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Possibly a Roxbury race. So there are people interested in that path forward, which would mean taking down that line. There

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: is I I would say there's nothing in here that talks about operating structure, but it's just talking about being contiguous.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Right.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. So

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I'm saying that wouldn't be possible. That line would be missing. Correct. Is that something that is worth pursuing or are there problems I'm not seeing in that?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I mean, think that there are always problems since having something be non contiguous. Leave it up to them.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: It could still work. It's a BOCES not a

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So these things all have to be operated like unseen. Yeah.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Again, discussed yesterday whether to just remain silent on governance and not be so prescriptive. So an option, to your point, would be to just take B out and not be prescriptive about whether it's contiguous or not, knowing that humans who are doing this will make the decision that works in their area. And most likely we'll say, well, it'd be really handy if we were contiguous. So could we say like it would be advised that school districts should

[Kate McCann (Member)]: be contiguous? And then if those 90 non operating districts really have the effort to organize within these meetings and fight for a non contiguous district, there's a

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: loophole for them to do so.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So I would say that that is contrary to a goal that we have, which is to have I mean, we are allowing a process to be somewhat organic. And I think that as it develops into something, those issues will probably work themselves out. There's no, there's not gonna be any law that says, this is just saying form a study committee and talk about it. And if that study committee says, here's an alternative idea, that's what a study committee can do.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I address all of that later on.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. So

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: that was what I was going to say,

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: but I want to

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: add on just one other thing, that even if school districts are contiguous in that voluntary conversation, there are other paths to inform districts that they wouldn't need to all put one together. There are other goals to do. We've talked about it many times.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that's all I have right now for direction to the facilitator. School districts. I would encourage us to I'm gonna

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: There's something coming up that talks about that they could certainly, if they need to bleed, oversee someone. Yes. Okay, thank you. Josh? Maybe. Was that it?

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: I mean, can we remove contiguous and add I think there's language somewhere in 46 that discusses, like, where language about intent that nothing requires dissimilar districts or

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, I think that that that was probably you know, act 46 almost requires that you have to be a similar operating system. I think we need to be away from that if we want to create school districts of 4,000

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: students. I think just taking out contiguous as even Beth was stating, it allows them a little more room to breathe when they're having those discussions. I know you're saying it's a study group, but it could be more organic in their conversation.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We can change this to should be, or?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Or again, you put as practical on the end. I think this is all policy, One

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of the things I would encourage you to think about and get feedback on, if it serves your goals, your ultimate goals, is how doable all of this is. Are you setting the facilitator up to come back to you in January and say, I couldn't put a single study group together or I could put three study groups together, but that left eight school districts on their own. That is a policy choice for you all if you are okay with that uncertainty. If you are trying to get to a place where every school district is going to have to be a part of a study committee, then I think you've got a lot of policy choices to make on what those study committees need to look like. But that guiding thought of, is this workable? And does this serve our ultimate goal? Is what I'm thinking about when I'm drafting this for you. Also in the interest of time, I'm wondering if maybe I could

[Emily Long (Member)]: just run through the rest This of the is not the only time we're

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: gonna talk about this. No. Okay, so we're on page 21. We're in a new subdivision within the same subsection. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a school district shall participate in the study committee it is assigned to by the facilitator. A study committee formed pursuant to this section shall appear to the processes and requirements of 16 BSA Chapter 11, Subchapter two, which is what we talked about yesterday, Union School District formation. When and if you are ready, I've done an outline, like a very two page outline that probably has more words than it should for an outline of what that process looks like. So you can start to look at where the particular points are you may wanna make changes or exceptions to current law. Okay, so you have to follow the study committee process, line six, page 21. A study committee formed pursuant to this section may identify necessary or advisable school districts. And those terms are defined in section subdivision seven zero eight Bs one and two, that are not members of the study committee or are not members of the seesaw or both, and shall work with the applicable facilitator or facilitators to adjust study committee membership as necessary.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: So that allows one seesaw to bleed into another?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, it does not allow one seesaw to bleed into another. It allows school districts who are members of different seesaws to participate in study committees that are not maybe under their seesaw membership catchment area. This is not about Seesaw membership. This is about union school district study committees. And you're starting with union school district study committees all living within their own Seesaw membership catchment area, there is already a provision in current law for what is a necessary school district to the formation of a union school district and what is an advisable school district to the formation of a union school district. So if a study committee is working and they say, you know what, this neighboring school district, that's a part of this other seesaw really would fit nicely in here. They can identify it as either necessary, which means the union school district does not form without it, or advisable, meaning if the Union School District does form, it would be nice if they joined. And then the facilitator or facilitators would be responsible for facilitating those study committee membership changes.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Maybe it's a question for down the road. So if that were to happen in the future, would the CSO membership list have to change No. Then Because if they became part I'm just thinking if only one school district came over, it would make sense for them to be part of

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the other. There are so many repercussions for what new school districts, like the chain of reaction that will be set off by new school districts, we haven't gotten there in this draft yet.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I'm thinking that it's way down the road.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're gonna want to report gonna want to figure out you're gonna wanna give the state board direction to adjust supervisor union boundaries. Only you can change CSO membership because it's set in statute. You're gonna want to report back on all of this. I haven't built any of that

[Emily Long (Member)]: in That's fine. It does seem though, to your point, that

[Kate McCann (Member)]: those are We set a mechanism. School district would need to be part

[Emily Long (Member)]: of a CSA that their supervisor needs And be part

[Kate McCann (Member)]: also that this conversation of a school district changing CSAs would actually involve two CSOs to do that because you can't just kidnap a school district.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It would actually only involve you doing something. So this section, you are all bringing up excellent points about the chain of reaction that will be set off if union school districts are ever formed. We haven't even gotten through. That's a question of how to get to new union school districts. And so subdivision B here is the only other new language here and that just requires that in addition to chapter 11, sub chapter two requirements for what the study committee is required to do and analyze,

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: that

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: they're also required to explore the advisability and feasibility of the new union school district, including a regional middle or high school or both. A regional middle or high school contemplated pursuant to the section shall offer resident students increased educational opportunities and access to career technical education. You need to beef that up. That could use some work. I just took my verbatim notes from yesterday and put them in here. This is a starting point based on your conversation yesterday. I I think it's a decent place for you all to start.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So I just wanna remind us what I consider to be keeping our eye on the prize here, And that is we are trying to build we're trying to build, and we and we are doing it from a less mandated in a much more sort of roundup process. Rather than sort of state mandated newer, larger districts, hearing many of the concerns of many people, including members of the committee, This is using a system that already exists in law, much of it already exists in law, in order to do this. However, I just want to keep our eye on the prize, which is we want we want to drive the conversation towards more consolidation in order to gain efficiencies and scale that will provide a way to help control costs and provide more opportunity for students by larger regions being able to act more strategically within their governance area in order to address many of the challenges that we continually talk about. So, I just want to always keep us remembering that as opposed to like, oh, my district, you know, would probably be happier here or, you know, sort of the little if we have sort of smaller geographical thoughts or concerns, I would like everybody to put those in terms of

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the goal here that we're trying to reach.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I guess I don't know that I would say that that is exactly the shared goal or when that was decided that was a shared goal. I think part of that is the shared goal, which is the efficiencies and the greater opportunity. But I think that by putting the phrase guiding towards consolidation first, I don't think there was a mass agreement that consolidation was the way to get there. And so I sort of feel like that's backwards. The efficiency is the cost savings and the greater opportunity, and if that's through consolidation, then we're providing a process.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, I think we are. In some

[Kate McCann (Member)]: cases, may not be through consolidation.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: So you have the flexibility of

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: what I'm saying. Why this is a I

[Kate McCann (Member)]: know. I just want to make sure people don't feel like we are tricking them into saying know, tricking them by saying, here's a path forward and really it's just a massed weighted forced consolidation later.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No forcing it here whatsoever.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Okay, well, we need to be very clear about that, that this may not end with them consolidating, if that is the way it will.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: In terms of forcing or what happens at the end of this, if it goes nowhere, we're going talk about that in conversation.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I don't think it will go nowhere. I think that there are a lot of regions that are on board and ready. But I think that there are other people that have a huge distrust of us because of the way that Act 73 all went down last spring. And I'm already hearing that I do see this as sort of a trick.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I don't know what to do about that.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I believe that Act 73, which is law, says that or implies that we are moving towards newer and fewer districts. That's what we're talking about is consolidation. I think we've already agreed to it in the sense that it's become law. That's true. And that is actually part of my response is we are no longer debating whether we should pass Act 73. Act 73 passed. We should be very clear about that as well, that we are moving forward. I just want to also make it clear that maybe they're not gonna consolidate at the end of this. But I mean, we've said that over and over. I guess there's no way to make people hear what they don't

[Emily Long (Member)]: wanna hear.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Or we just have the status quo?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I don't think that not doing that I don't know, that phrase bothers me too, because it almost seems like if we don't do this one thing that one person wants, we're just sticking with the status quo rather than exploring other things. And there's all these things too, not in the justice committee we haven't explored, but have to do with healthcare, second home taxation and things like that too.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: It's not just all up to consolidation. I would love to just say that you're not the only one who's hearing from everybody. We're all

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: here from And I just want to say,

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I really appreciate this conversation we're having and this draft language that we're looking at, because it does address many of the concerns that you're talking about.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I just want to make sure

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: that we're staying focused on, thank you, Chair, for stating those goals, because honestly, all of those are true. And we're trying to find a more voluntary, collaborative path to get to our goals. And so I just want to

[Kate McCann (Member)]: make sure we don't lose sight of that. No, I think in many ways, is exactly what people are asking for. They wanted local control in this decision making, and this includes that. I guess the only reason I brought it up is because when we start with the shared goal is to move towards bigger consolidate. I just don't know how much that's my shared goal.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would also sort of say, this is a path that we are going down, not just the whole sort of using CISAs as a way to save money and facilitate conversation and provide shared services. It's something that we already have had, I would say, fairly strong support from the redistricting task force. We had the campaign from a lot of people come in and think it was the best deal ever. I put other sort of conservative commentators saying that this is the way to go. This is a sort of path that seems to appeal to a broad spectrum of people, which is, I think, why we ended up here. But it is creating a future that we don't really know what will come out of it. But it is one where Vermonters will have a stronger voice. That's for sure. We are probably going to need to shift gears because we have our amendments that we need to have presented. You're looking for further

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, any feedback for moving forward.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Can we so what's what's you you have an outline of what could come next?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, here, let me pull it up and just show you what it looks like.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Help help us help you.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna throw the ball right back at you. Let me just pull this up because it'll make sense when we look at it, I'll send it to Matt for posting. I just didn't know if we were gonna get there today. What I am contemplating, and a little bit of what we talked about yesterday, was right now, you've deviated from law a little bit, and that you're not saying voluntarily find each other. You are requiring someone else to put books together on a study committee, and you are requiring participation in that study committee, and that study committee is going to set up a whole chain of events. And so I'm wondering if you want those chain of events to occur organically as they would under current law, or if there are places where you need to or you want to change what current law would require or add to what current law would require, etcetera. And so, for example so all of those would be policy choices. Right? So for example so let's see if I can make this bigger.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Budget and membership of the study committee. You've already taken care of

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the membership piece. Budget is proportioned to Well, actually budget and the number of people sitting on the study committee are proportionate to And look at this nice outdated language here, equalized peoples. We'll say ADM for all school districts participating in the study committee. Do you like that? Do you want it to be a certain number of people from each seat, or are you happy with the status quo?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Is your maximum number in there? Yeah. Study

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: committee budgets. If the budget exceeds $50,000 it has to be approved by the voters. You requiring mandatory participation. This may be an area where you not withstand law. There's formal versus informal participation because you're contemplating under current law, this one group in this one region doing this at one time. You have the whole state doing this at the same time. And we haven't even built in timelines here. When does the first study committee When does the facilitator need to make all of those assignments, etcetera? So maybe the concept of informal participation. Do you want to allow dual formally participating in one place and then appointing school board members to informally participate somewhere else where there might be a difference of opinions of where a school district would best fit? The staff of supervisor unions provided administrative assistance, and the Secretary of Education is required to cooperate with the study committee and is authorized to make agency staff available to provide technical assistance to the committee. Do you need more technical assistance? This is all happening at one time. That may not be possible. Do you need to provide money? People? Both? Where are those people living? They living in the seesaws? Are they living at the agency, etcetera? Committee decisions are reached by a majority of all members present and voting. That's another policy area. Present and voting. What happens

[Kate McCann (Member)]: if, you know, I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't know. But that's again another necessary and advisable school districts. This is where they are.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Remote voting?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't necessarily say open meeting law applies. So I don't know what the open meeting law requirements are off the top of my head. So, if apply, if open meeting law requirements I'm sorry. We'll figure that out. Necessary and advisable school districts are defined here. You may wanna look at those definitions, see if you need to tweak them for the purposes of this specific situation. So if a study committee determines it is advisable to propose formation of a school district, it shall prepare a report analyzing the strengths and challenges of the current structures of all necessary and advisable school districts and outlining the ways in which a union school district promotes the state policy set forth in Section seven zero one. What else do you want them to do? The study committee is also required to prepare proposed articles of agreement that is laid out very specifically in statute of what those articles of agreement need to include. Do you wanna make any changes there? And they could be forever changes or they could be temporary changes specific to the situation. If a study committee determines it is inadvisable to propose formation of a unit school district, you're all done. Do you want to let that happen? Or is there another stage? Local school boards get to review the proposed articles of agreement and report, and they can provide comments, but the study committee has the sole authority over the contents of the report. Are you happy with that? The report and proposed articles then go to the secretary who submits them to the state board with recommendations. Do you want to put timelines around those? The agency and the state board is going to be inundated potentially. Even more so if you make changes to what happens if a study committee says it's inadvisable to go forward and you still want something to go to the state board in the sense. Then the state board considers the report and the proposed articles, has to give the study committee an opportunity to be heard, and they ask the secretary, the study committee, or both to make further investigation and may consider any other information the state board deems pertinent. Are you okay with leaving that open? Or do you wanna limit the state board to just what they have in front of them? All policy. They request that the study committee amend the report and the proposed articles or both. Do you want the state board to continue to have that power? And then is the state board is required to approve formation of a union school district pursuant to chapter 11, if it makes these findings. Are you happy with these findings? Do you wanna make any other findings? Then the chair of the study committee sends the final report to the clerk of each school district, and then there has to be a vote of every school district that is deemed necessary to the formation of the Union School District. All of those votes have to be held on the same day. They're by Australian ballot.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Okay. I didn't Sorry. Just a clarifying question. That vote is of all the people, not just the members of the school board. Correct? It's the school, it's the electorate.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. All

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: right. But that is a policy choice for you all. The vote to elect initial members of the Union School District happens at the same time as the vote on whether or not to form the Union School District. And within chapter 11, it spells out all of the different types of representation. The proposed articles of agreement that the study committee has put forward and that the state board has approved should list what that representation model is, are you happy with them picking from the three that are in state law? Do you need to limit that? If all of the votes, if all of the school districts, if the electorate of all of the school districts that have been deemed necessary, vote yes, then the Union School District has formed. Are you happy with that? I mean, like, this is You can absolutely just rely on current law and not make a single change. But I just wanted to highlight that depending on what your ultimate goals are, there are many places where you may need to go in and make changes to current law.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay, that's really helpful. Think you can share that document with anybody who wants it on the committee, would be great. Yeah, definitely.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna send it to Matt for posting. Okay, great.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yep. I think that these are I would like everybody to really look at that document and think about it. The Act 46 process, cumbersome, long, I would say doesn't move all that quickly. I would say that there are probably areas where we could tighten things up so that since it's a process that we now have been through and understand, maybe we can tighten it up and make it work better. So please think about it, look at it, think about it. Kate?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Matt, I would like a printed copy of that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are there others who

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We might can make 11 printed copies.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Thank you, I can write on it.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you. Great. So that's really helpful, thank you.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yes? Well, thinking out loud, wonder if it would be useful to work from one or two, six mergers about

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the

[Emily Long (Member)]: process and where they see baby things were more, better than they needed to be or, you know, in hindsight, you could actually

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: set up processes. It's an excellent question, excellent idea. I'd have

[Emily Long (Member)]: a CT scan, if you need one. Okay. Yeah, and a couple very different.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay, we need to move on to our next couple of topics before we move to our ability to have legislative council here. Don't we, who's first up?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Elizabeth on the schedule.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: What's that?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Elizabeth on the schedule.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Alright, good. Let's have Elizabeth start and then have you follow. Thank you. Representative Burrows, welcome. Thank you for joining us this morning.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Thank you for inviting me to come in.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: This amendment is posted under today on our website for those who are looking for it. How about you take us through it a little bit and where you're at on it.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Guest, House Member)]: Okay. So in 2023, there was passed out of this committee a bill that pertained to it was the school safety bill. And it talked about safety plans. And at the very end of that bill, there was a working group that was created to address hazing, harassment, and bullying. And that working group, I attended every single meeting of it. One of its charges, it had three charges. And the charges were It was supposed to address cases of harassment and bullying. It had three charges, the elimination of the severe and pervasive that they were supposed to explore. One was the elimination of the severe pervasive standard for harassment and discrimination in educational settings. Another one was the resources that are required for schools to develop harassment prevention initiatives, as well as supports for students who have this harassment. And the third area was the compulsory educational requirements for students who have been victims of harassment. The working group was asked to come back with recommendations to this committee about how to approach those subjects. I attended every single meeting of that working group. It was extremely contentious and difficult. They had difficult work. They were not able to they had a report that came out of it in January 2024, which was presented to this committee in February 2024. And I'm just going to read very quickly what it said, what it recommended about compulsory educational attendance requirements. So because the committee or the working group had a lot of very, very strong opinions floating around, The recommendations that came out of that working group were extremely low hanging fruit. These recommendations were what they could agree on. So for compulsory educational attendance requirements for students who have been victims of harassment, the working group deliberated on the mandatory attendance requirements for students who have experienced harassment and the associated challenges when students do not feel secure returning to school. In response to this issue, a subcommittee was established and conducted multiple public comment periods to gain deeper insights. Despite a relatively low turnout for the hearing, one particularly impactful story resonated corroborating experiences shared by members of the working group. The toll on mental health due to bullying and harassment is profoundly debilitating for many students. It is recommended that due consideration be given to cases where students may be facing mental disabilities that impact their ability to attend school. It is important to emphasize that the intention is not to penalize victims of harassment or discrimination by compelling their attendance when they are not emotionally prepared. Likewise, there was a discussion about being cautious not to create a situation where students are inadvertently missing out on educational opportunities and activities due to unaddressed issues. Striking a balance that supports the well-being of students while ensuring their access to education remains a priority. Recognizing the diversity of student needs, the working group proposes a nuanced approach to compulsory attendance. A one size fits all strategy is insufficient. Instead, the working group recommends the advocate for attendance requirements that consider individual circumstances, ensuring a more effective response to diverse attendance challenges. Further, to better address instances of harm, the working group urgency Agency of Education to create guidance documents that emphasize the importance of tailored responses for all students struggling with safety and emotional issues, and that schools be provided with resources and protocols to respond effectively to bullying and harassment, acknowledging the unique aspects of each case. Guidance documents should also reflect best practices for reentry into education spaces. It should emphasize emotional, academic, and social support to facilitate a successful reintegration process for returning students. While this recommendation focuses specifically on attendance related to harassment and discrimination, the working group further urges schools to review parent policy 16 BSA 176, which outlines the compulsory attendance requirements for the project. So submitted a short form bill based on all of the or I submitted several short form bills this session based on all of the recommendations, each separately from this report. And one of them did pertain to that recommendation. And I asked Beth to draw that into an amendment for H nine thirty. Because having looked through the documentation and testimony that you took, saw that it, by and large, left harassment and bullying unaddressed, which is actually a really big issue that remains unaddressed by state leaders. This amendment does endeavor to address a piece of the result of hazing, harassment, and bullying, but it also honors the very difficult work that that working group did

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: do. And so,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: that's what it is. Questions before we have Wesley walk through it? I'd say, know, one of the reasons that we had what is in the amendment that says number 13 is other reasons not specified because of subsection is kind of the catchall, and I think this was part of that as well. I appreciate the idea that appeasing harassment and bullying can lead to chronic absenteeism. Starting on line 13, the rest of this is much broader than the bill which is specifically tailored to chronic absenteeism. I'm just not sure we can respond effectively without testimony. I'm not sure we have time for testimony. Just wanna float that out there, but appreciate you continue to raise this as an issue.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Guest, House Member)]: My thought by And I asked about it yesterday on the floor, if you recall, but my thought was that actually, rather than having hazing, harassment, and bullying be included in a catch all, that actually enumerating it separately does several different things, one of which is signals to families and students who have had their safety and mental health compromised by hazing, harassment, and bullying that we acknowledge that this is a thing, and we endeavor to touch upon it. And secondly, again, these are taken straight from the working group that was enacted in 2023. So that working group did take a lot of testimony and had a

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: lot of discussion on this sector.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Guest, House Member)]: Was it brief? Was it AOE on that working group in any capacity? Yes. That working group of the Secretary of Education, the Executive Director of the Human Rights Commission, the Executive Director of the Now Working on Domestic and Sexual Violence, the Executive Director of BTNEA, or designees for all of these, the executive director of the SBA, the Vermont Principals Association, Vermont Superintendents Association, Outright Vermont, Office of Racial Equity, National Association of Social Workers, Vermont Legal Aid, the chair of the Hazing, Harassment, and Bullying Prevention Advisory Council. It was like the HHB Advisory Council plus a few extra.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: You know, as I typically can be trying to find lists at least make me uncomfortable because everybody's gonna have another thing they wanna put on the list. Is, again, is why we sort of have the catch all at the end. I sort of appreciate the heightened awareness you are trying to provide for when it comes to what may be an excusable absence. I appreciate that. Think that's why we have to catch all. It's just the further section that is a much more I'm just not quite sure what to do with it because it's to do with a lot more than just chronic absenteeism. And I'm a little concerned about sort of forging ahead with something like that without us having some testimony. So I just, what I would say is, if this committee votes not to move ahead with the amendment, I hope that that is not seen as any dismissal of these concerns, but more of one of timing and ability given the way the legislative process works. The lovely thing about the legislative process is there's a whole other half

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: to it where there's more opportunity to refine and perfect. So when the miscellaneous ed bill goes to the Senate, if the Senate

[Kate McCann (Member)]: sought

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: to This is the

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: correct answer.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Sorry, that's what I meant. Yes, the chronic absentee bill. The Senate could then, if they wanted to, take the testimony that would be necessary to put

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: this They're welcome to amend our bill to their heart's desire. Thank you very much. The first instance

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Guest, House Member)]: of amendment, is that just technical? I'm striking out the word before. You're gonna walk us through it, right? That work?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Beth? Anything else?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Guest, House Member)]: We talked about the other two. Thanks very much. Thank you.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. We'll do a a quick walk through.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Council, do you want

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: me to share my screen?

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

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is an amendment to H nine thirty as introduced. The first instance of amendment is exactly that. You are adding a provision to the list, so the or is no longer in the right place. So we have to strike it on Subdivision 11 and then add it back in in the second instance of amendment. The second instance of amendment is substantive. You are adding incidents of the amendment proposes to add incidents of hazing, harassment, or bullying to the list of absences that may be excused by a superintendent or head of school. 13 is the same as it appears in the bill as introduced. It's just a new subdivision number to account for the addition of the HHB language in subdivision 12. The thirteenth instance of amendment is an amendment to subsection 1124A, which is the model policy policy statute. So after the words prevention of chronic absenteeism and truancy, referring to the development of the model policy, this amendment proposes to add the words. So essentially it would be the model policy. AOE is required to develop a model policy related to the prevention of chronic absenteeism and truancy, comma, which shall include guidance that emphasizes the importance of tailored responses to all students struggling with safety and emotional issues and shall emphasize emotional, academic and social support to facilitate a successful reintegration for returning students. The policy shall include protocols to respond effectively to bullying and harassment, acknowledging the unique aspects of each case, including best practices for reentry into education spaces. So the effect of this amendment would be that the model policy has to take in all of this into account. And that is the only changes that this amendment proposes to the bill.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Questions for legislative counsel?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Thank you.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Let's move on to the next amendment. Representative Chapin, come join us at the table if we will.

[Rep. Ella Chapin (Guest, House Member)]: Thank you, Ella Chapin, representative looks familiar. Appreciate you all taking a little time and what is, I know, very busy morning for you on other topics. My concerns around H930 have to do with, I'm just really concerned that we might be prevent where preventing chronic absenteeism could negatively affect certain students with developmental disabilities. It's actually sort of overlaps a little bit with what you were just talking about, but it but it's more aimed at students who have a developmental disability, whether that has been diagnosed or not, frankly. But obviously, when they've been diagnosed, there are other protections in place. But many students are not diagnosed and don't necessarily have a five zero four or an IEP. Comes from my personal experience, I mean, is not my area, none of this is my area of expertise. So, I just come to you as a representative who has a student with a developmental disability that has greatly affected school attendance. And attending school is highly triggering to his nervous system and pressure in particular of any kind, even the most benign things you would never think of pressure, but particularly pressure to attend through his elementary school years contributed to him ending up in autistic burnout and an inability to attend school at all. I homeschooled him totally unplanned for fifth grade. He went to a part time private school for sixth grade, and we got him back into public school for seventh grade. In seventh grade, he missed 30% or more of his days at school, and that is now down to 11%. And part of that was my advocating with the school that there should be no pressure placed. And when I received the letter that I got every few months from the state, I could throw it in the recycling bin, my school gave me their word, frankly, nothing in writing, nothing in statute, that would protect my child from pressure to be in school. And luckily, had parents who chose not to pressure him to go to school. And that has made it possible for him to go to school. It's an accommodation. My child has a diagnosis and now just in the past year has a five zero four plan. But that five zero four plan, I'm just really unsure if state truancy policies have any exceptions or alternative processes for students with disabilities. Even with an IEP or five zero four, in my own experience, we've continued to receive all of these warnings about consequences for me and my child, threats, really, if you read the letter, and that the discretion is really at the school level as to whether to take initial action. I think at some point, if we went over a certain number of days, school district wouldn't even have discretion anymore. Just really unclear to me as a parent, if there are any policies or particularly even state laws that protect us from this. There are cases like mine, we're not alone, where best practice to support this neurodivergent student with a developmental disability is to embrace and adapt to a low attendance and not to take any action other than to focus on meeting his needs in school when he is in school. So it left me really, I didn't even know about this bill until yesterday, left me really curious how to best ensure school policies in this case that you're talking about can and equitably do best meet those students' access to education. This is a vulnerable and minority population, obviously a historic marginalized population, student population. It overlaps heavily with those who get bullied in school. But again, many of those kids who are experiencing bullying and hazing in school don't necessarily have a diagnosis and definitely might not have the protections in place they need. So I really would say I'm offering an amendment here that would just at the very minimum ensure that the model policy will address this topic in the policy guidance to districts. And I also really support the amendment, particularly the sort of first sentence of that in the other amendment that Representative Burroughs presented to you, where it acknowledges the various needs, impacts, and best approaches to ensure students at an individual level have a plan to feel safe in school in order to access their education. And I implore you not to pump this to Senate. There are many fewer people on the Senate side who can advocate for this. And those of us here in the House who are advocating for these students do expect you to take the time you need if you need more time to adequately ensure this bill in front of you passes out of the House with protections in place for these historically marginalized populations. I don't really accept the idea that this should just go to the Senate because that's our process and let the Senate deal with it. So thank you for taking the time to think about this. I know you guys have a humongous task right now and have for the last couple of years, and I just really appreciate

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: all of your work. Hold on a second. You have questions? This is sort of based on your specific circumstance. Appreciate all of that. It's never gone further than the letter within sort of no one's ever taken a truancy action against you. Is that fair to say?

[Rep. Ella Chapin (Guest, House Member)]: That's fair to say. In the year that he missed in the end thirty percent, for him, on some of those days, the second half of the year is harder for him than the first half of the year. By the time we were hitting 30%, it was almost the end of the year. And that was also a time when I was negotiating with the school and trying to understand how that And since the rates have been lower for him, so we haven't sort of pushed past that 30%.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And currently there's an IEP in place or a five zero four in place that accommodates

[Rep. Ella Chapin (Guest, House Member)]: I would say so far it has accommodated. It is not very clear in the five zero four what happens at any kind of particular threshold. It just says that the school should make more allowances. So it's vague, unclear, and hasn't really been tested.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Rob, Yeah. Were you able to be part of that process of coming up with that client?

[Rep. Ella Chapin (Guest, House Member)]: Yes, although I don't have the final say. So if a school had said yes to this and no to that, and it had been in the no pile, Don't know, I mean, presume there's an appeals process. So I'm part of the process, but the school really is making that final determination in And my

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know they answered, but

[Rep. Ella Chapin (Guest, House Member)]: I'm going ask you this question.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's illegal in here, not what it's called.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: But do you know, or you're suggesting that there are students out there who could benefit from these 504s, or really a policy in place, that haven't been diagnosed and haven't been to that club?

[Rep. Ella Chapin (Guest, House Member)]: Absolutely, lots. I mean, my child was in that for the first eight years of his one through nine. We didn't get these protections in place, and we had truancy issues starting from first grade. And like I said, by fourth grade, he just was like, I can't go back to school. So I did not get the help. He did not get the help and the access to education during his elementary school years that I think he should have. And we really struggled and had took years to get back on track. Yeah, I guess I just would say that I think making sure the AOE and their model policy development just takes this into consideration. That's the amendment I'm offering, is just to make sure they address the fact that certain populations might need to be addressed differently. I hope that they would do that anyway, but we just don't know. And my experience with truancy is that this has been missed in the state and school process, such that there is nothing clear and no guidance to me or to the school exactly how to handle it. So it's all discretionary. And I just don't think, I think there should be good policy modeling suggestion on this.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think they would agree with exactly what you said. And that's the purpose of the panel is to sort of better refine and just take away the Kind of the the harsh penalty aspect of all of this

[Rep. Ella Chapin (Guest, House Member)]: and some of it and some equity around the discretion.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. And, you know, the you know, it's not only the process is it leaves the house, goes to the Senate. After that, it then goes to the AOE process, which includes consultation with lots of other people. I would hope that they would either through the other people they're consulting with or directly be open to responses as well. None of what's in the chronic absenteeism bill prevents any of what either of you are asking for to happen. It's true.

[Rep. Ella Chapin (Guest, House Member)]: I would just say so far, the AOE and our school district has not created clear policies on this. So I'm that if we just leave it to the discretion of the AOE, that we'll get more of the same.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you all.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's St. James, Office of Legislative Council. We're also looking at an amendment to h nine thirty as introduced. This language would appear in the same section of the bill that the third instance of amendment of the previous amendment appears in. So the model policy section in subsection 1124A. AOE shall develop a model policy regarding the prevention of chronic absenteeism and truancy, and this amendment proposes to add, comma, which shall include specific provisions for how to address the absence of a child with a disability, as that term is defined in subdivision twenty nine forty two one of this title, which is the definition section of your special education chapter in title 16 in accordance with applicable state and federal law. So that's gonna sweep in any other state law that would be applicable and all of the federal laws related to students with disabilities.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Doctor. James? I would just say to the committee, I think these are incredibly well intentioned, thoughtful amendments. We are up against the sort of reality of process and time, and I always live in great fear of unintended consequences. So I put that out there, don't think anybody else has anything they want to say. We will take a break and then come back and then we'll vote on the amendments.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Yes. I think this has already been said, thank you for that orientation to where we are in the process. In terms of with this bill, we're setting in motion a process for the agency to come up with a model policy and agree that the issues that we're talking about here today are important, but personally I'm comfortable leaving that to the agency process and would have hoped that there is an in-depth exploration and conversation with parents and advocates and particularly with the field about what this should look like.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I'm just going to add to that. It's not just that the AOE is coming up with a policy, it's in consultation with many, many partners, including, we just added, school counselor associations to that list as well. That's right, we just added that result.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'll just remind the committee from a broader context what the bill does. There's nothing in law about chronic absenteeism. The overall goal here is to sort of take back the sort of 1950s attitude of truancy. So if you wanna think about like, what do we have and what are we trying to do? You can almost read nine thirty and see all the struck out truancy stuff. That's sort of existing law today. Anyway, great. Let's come back at