Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Yep, you're live.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We are back at House Education Wednesday, March 25, continue our discussion on policy decision points. I'd say during the break, as we all sort of reflected back on this, maybe that we should try to get through these with a sort of philosophy of let's not try to reinvent the wheel as much as possible, see how we do. So we were just talking about proposed articles of agreement. So the question is, do we include specific provisions of any kind? Which would be a deviation from current law. So I would say at this point, let's not. Yeah, I agree. Size and guidance, I think I personally would need Beth to come back in and sort of walk through board size as it is. Is that right?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I just make sure I heard correctly because there was some movement. So schools closure, I hope you're saying that we disagree we're going stay silent on that. Yes. Okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted to confirm

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: guidance and requirements, read representation models. Law is pretty clear on that. I think that should be there.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: There's three in the law now. So the question is, are we happy with those three? Do we not want to have any?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: The three, they've stood the test

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: of time. So we don't need to do

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: What are the three?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It is totally at large, proportional representation, meaning that based on the community you're elected from, you get a fraction of a vote and hybrid, which is Vast majority do, I think. Yeah. And then there are some that have at large and hybrid.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Yeah. It

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: all just has to be constitutionally allowed. Okay, let's go down to three C, type of school district. Require consideration of a Unified Union School District. I'm a yes on that because that's the most efficient model. Should a newly formed district want to create an operating structure by which they could do any or all of the above, it can.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Just to clarify from this morning, because I know it will come up. So, a Unified Union School District is responsible for the education of all students grades pre K through 12. But how that is provided within a Unified Union school district is up to them. It does not eliminate school choice if you are a K-twelve unified school district. Because I know that's people listening are going to ask that question.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's right. Unless that district chooses to do that.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Our saying Unified Union School District is not eliminating existing school choice, tuitioning, how they sense it's Now not

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: it may be when the merger study committee comes they may say, you know something? Can't really see how these two could work together under what governance structure, we're just not gonna

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: do That's up to each of the local study committees to determine. Okay. Thank you. Just one clarification out there.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: The Unified Union School District is as opposed to a supervisory union. So I'm going to put in my blood and my people are saying supervisory unions.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's fine, they can decide that.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Again,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: mandated conversation, not mandated action.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Concrete example. Because I've received some emails. So, was it prior that you couldn't be in the same school district if you had different operating structures? For example, where I taught, that's why the six elementary schools got together and formed one school district. Lake Region High School was a separate school district. They then were a supervisor union. But I've heard from some there, we're thinking about maybe being a K-twelve system, the same ones, those six in the high school, but we would be one rather than supervisor union with two. That would be allowable at this point.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Of Bennington County could get together and say, we want to be one district and we realize we have multiple different operating systems, but we are going to be a three ks to 12 district. Within it, we are going to adopt attendance zones, and sort of all the things that Chris put out in his life, and we're going to operate it that way. Or more likely, they might say, That's too complicated. We're just simply gonna stay the way we are. Same with SUs.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Yeah, I guess it would be that it would be tied to articles of agreement, something in there that's going to say like the bigger fish can't deceive the smaller fish because they have more of those.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So if they choose, if the study committee says we want to move forward to the pre K to 12 operating district, then their articles of agreement would probably have to work that out in the articles of agreement or they might just say, they're not gonna do it.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Yeah, even within the Articles of Agreement, theoretically, couldn't enough voters vote for Articles of Agreement that benefited their long term secret goal, not saying anyone has this long term secret goal, but shutting down the school and adopt the artisan agreement that would allow that?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Theoretically, yes. I think I would hope that having been part of that and something like that, where there was a big fish and a bunch of small fish, that people would have the best interest of all schools in the district at heart. That's democracy happening and democracy in that case may say, yeah, we're scared of that. We're not going to go through with it. Remember that when forming a unified union school district, if one town or one district says we don't want to participate or votes no on the articles of agreement, the whole thing doesn't happen. And then they

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: can start over without that town. Try it again.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Or they can just

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I'm

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: trying to figure out a way to mandate to do the right thing.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: You have to trust about the right thing.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Think about kids

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: first. But even that, I think is I understand. This

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: is why this is a process that should make people there feel very comfortable. Everybody's very much in control of the decimal.

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: What happens if study committee determines a UUSD is inadvisable, maybe some other format would be advisable? Do they need to form a separate study committee? Can they just document the decision and move towards forming something other than a UUSD? I would say, if they say it's unadvisable, that they're done and that they want to use the current Chapter 11 language to try something else. There's nothing preventing that.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: My only question is, so does that mean they have to start all over again as opposed to that same study committee? Because that was the question. Could they just document the decision to move forward on that new plan without having a whole new study committee because they've already done all the work? I think it's what the question is there. And I don't know, I'm just asking. We had this study committee, we got together, we figured this out, we said, what's really more advisable is we have an elementary, so we're going to move forward. Guess that's a question. Do they have to start all over? Or could they

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: They have all the information. Alright. Well, can they just document that decision point and actually move towards forming something other than a US case?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Seems more efficient.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Wouldn't this be very much like the task force and what they did with the Act 73 recommendation to come up with maps and they came up with something different? No, I don't think so. No, I feel like it's applicable. I don't think for it later, you know? It's goal to get us to school districts? I understand why we would play in a sandbox.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Other than a K-twelve school district? Through USD. Yeah.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Mean, aren't we Like, recommendations come back to us, and we just say, okay, those of you who've made good decisions, that view UUSD, check. Those of you who've made poor decisions, we'll just create new USPs with you.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's kind of right. Well, I mean, think we could say, okay, if you decide not to do it, then we can just say that's it. And if they want to continue on another path, they feel welcome to use a chapter 11. I think this is the area where incentives would be important. Raise and Means is trying to work on incentives.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: And we heard that in testimony yesterday.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes, we sure should. Was incentive. It really was.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: We take that very seriously. That was possible.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So I think for simplicity's sake, again, trying to keep it simple, we would just say, if it's not advised, you're done. You want to go down another path, the current law allows that. You're not getting any incentives or a facilitator.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I guess that's my only question is, is that going to stop areas from getting together that would otherwise I don't want to stop the murderous period.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: The law allows them to if they

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: want to start a series The of

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: reference to a C side by side concept act 49, I would say not a happy one. Okay. That just creates lots of car routes at different models. It's actually here for act 49, 46. Does a USD need to include all participants in the study committee or the study committee decides only six of the eight member school districts are necessary? Okay, if the other two should remain on their own, require a new separate study committee. Again, this would be an incentive thing.

[Speaker 0]: I don't think you should have to include all members. Neither.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Stick with current law.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Because who knows what the study committee will they might be advisable and make no sense.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: All right, so due dates, we have to do that. So skip over. New school district advisable, any extra requirements on top of current law?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: No. That's the report, though. Just for are the Current

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: law requires a report to the school board of each school district with no additional direction. That's probably as know, unless. Somebody would have to make a report at the law has is it there.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: That's what we did in the public. Even with the incentives and with the. Start up ramps and all that,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we still haven't just go to the school board. So here is a deviation from current law that I, at this point, favor. If the study committee says a new district is inadvisable, do you require a report? Let's say yes. What should be in the report? We created language already in the language in front of us that talks about what should be in it. Right. I'm not sure I'd go down the path of all these other things. Other than who the report should go to.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: That's a matter.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, it's probably in our current language. I think it probably should go to

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: You would want to know

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the reasons why the formation would be inadvisable.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yep. So this is a that's a question that we'll need to see what we have is where the report goes. So now we're getting into how it happened during Act 46. Current law requires advisable report and proposed articles of agreements to go to the secretary. We shall then submit them with recommendations to the state board. If we are talking about having incentives, And we should probably have a certain level of review. Yes.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: But slowing

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: it down. Maybe we'll have Beth go over that process with us. We got a sense of timing. Current law, the State Board of Education is allowed to say no. Do we still want that level of

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Say no to group that came together and tried to merge?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. You're on the new district, Nick.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: I said

[Speaker 0]: I will better

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: f. Say y

[Speaker 0]: with better f.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Oh. Know you know I think that perhaps to avoid a Roxbury situation.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I think there is a situation where they could say no and shouldn't probably exist.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: You did

[Speaker 0]: on the state board review piece. Okay. So I would say no changes to the current process. No changes to the current process. Yeah. Did we skip D3? A R D. Yeah.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: We have your little under new district advisables. Redoubt the orphans.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: A new district advisable, any extra requirements on top of law? We said no.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. That's what I thought. But for some reason, it's My brain didn't catch

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: up. Less likely.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So under Act 46, everybody kind of created their Articles of Agreement, voted on them, then it went to the Secretary for review, who could skip that and just have it go directly to the State Board of Education?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: That was a question I had. I'm just good to skip a whole step. I was wondering about that, why I had to go to the secretary and then go to the state board, but I'm not sure leaving the Secretary of Education out of the loop of this process is necessarily a good idea either.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think we can get some feedback

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: on that. We need some feedback on that.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Put a timeline on her opportunity for review.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yep. You say if it's not reviewed, then you know.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Perhaps it's all directly to the straight situation. Yeah. We should get input from the state board. They're yeah, fine or no, this is why we'd want that. Maybe the state board would like that review before it comes to that. Ask that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Of course, are questions. Does the state board have the capacity to do this? We have to think about that while we're talking about that. That may be a question for next year. Current state law requires providing the study committee to be heard, allows SBE to request that the study committee amend the report or articles of agreement. Should we allow the state board to require that they And their articles of agreement or amend the report for articles of agreement. I think. One thing I'm trying to think of here is I have a question for Beth when we have her back at four, hopefully, and that is I can't remember the order here. Are articles of agreement voted on and then do they go to the state board or do they go to the state board for who voted on? So if the field has voted, I would be hesitant to say that the state board can. I thought it was the other way around.

[Speaker 0]: That's for F, correct? Yep. Because I was thinking that would stay with the current process.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Actually, we need a local application on the current process.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: He might be my draft articles of agreement of this secretary. Because if you voted on them That's almost giving a layer of approval that may be up to.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Everybody jump to G. Okay. Current law requires voters of each school district identified as necessary or advisable to vote. Do they to deviate in any way? No. Need to happen by a certain date?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I think there need to be some timelines process.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Maybe there's something that's about. Yeah. Did you say incentives? That's I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: was thinking if you get a window where you could

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: get incentives, but after that. Yeah.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: So if they vote to

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: not form a union school district, then they still are remaining in their CESA, correct?

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

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: The other point of this, I feel like we're not talking about enough, is that the real point of this thesis is not to push towards consolidation, but to start things with other services.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's right. It's to provide the services that districts would prefer. It's ancillary. Okay. Districts would of CESAs as separate and apart from this other than their ability to sort of take on the facilitator.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Is this a document that's just internal?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, no, it's posted.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: So I wonder if that part G, what says vote to form a union school district, really say vote whether to form a union school district, just to make sure that it's not influencing that they should be voting to form a union system.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'm kidding. Hope people would understand that a vote means it's gonna win or lose. This is only informing statute when we get to that point. These just decision points for us to have. So, yes, it is internal, but it is a public document. Okay. And light bulb over of

[Speaker 0]: it right now.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: It's about That's just a thought, though, because I'm wondering if there there should be two phases of San Antonio's. First first round is, like, two years. Right? But then we take a year off, we say, the window's gonna be open again for another six months. You know, after a break of, a year. And that way, people are people go, oh, man. We missed that tax break. We should've done that. Somebody says, hey. Oh, that window opens up again in another year. We got six months.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And won't that just stop everybody from doing it until their third year?

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: That's a good point.

[Speaker 0]: Don't tell them that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It'll be our it'll our secret statutes. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Report

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: back on results from AOE, yes.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: This is the results of the vote.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Guess we now have the answer to our question about whether the vote comes before going before the state board. Clearly, it comes after that. So I guess I would be perhaps hesitant to deviate from state law and allow the state board to review and recommend changes.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Great.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So then if there are

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: a There's sense of still a question around the secretary review part.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would say, do we want to deviate from law? In the Act 46 process, that was a fairly quick, okay, everything looks like it's in order, passing it on to the state board.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: But maybe put a time.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Each made a note about that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. I

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: mean, six per line, it goes secretary first, and then it goes okay. So

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we are at H we have to name everything.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Do think there's one, two, actually three,

[Speaker 0]: that section before we get to names? Yep. I'd like to explore Leanne's map further as it

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, then we are down to guides map. Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I thought you said names. So Oh, yeah. I like her map. Keeps popping back in my head, I was hoping that, you know, we're looking at yours, looking at hers as well, and see what we can come up with, either one or the other between the two. But I really hers resonates with me.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm going again sort of advocate for buying and talking about CSAs here. Right, which is CSA map. It is that bind A accommodates the existing CSA that is there a continues it as a CSA and represents areas where superintendents are already working together because these are superintendents groupings, and they're the ones who have to work together closely on a CISA. There's also some, I would just say, topography issues.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So that's kind of where I am on mine. Mine needs some adjustments. There's no question about it.

[Speaker 0]: Can we pull hers and try and see if there's ways to merge the two and use some and made that to where we can work on

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the adjustments? It would have to be with justification. There's some specific reasons as to why that is better, which is not totally open to that. I'm just telling you why I picked mine. It also follows the recommendation of the task force.

[Speaker 0]: I think it's for me, when I look at your list of districts in it, my brain goes to the districts that I do appreciate the point, as you mentioned the other day, Anne today, about the VSAs, they're already working together. I

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: will say that when I first created that map, it was sort of thinking not so much about the seasons, this was created before the time when we turned towards the seasons, and I was thinking about those districts more as supervisory unions to reduce our 52 to your 17, because I was basically thinking if we want something to pass and the governor is absolutely not going to accept anything that doesn't have a reduced cap, that would be the reductions I would wanna make. And then kind of put the CISAs over that and then the entire term to the CISAs. I mean, I think in thinking about like, if the CISAs did eventually somehow form SUs or districts within their CISAs versus inter CISAs. That's what I would recommend because they dominated the same tech district. So that is sort of the philosophy behind that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I get the text teachers there. Sure. Okay. Well, So the guidance maps Again, the language that we have says following that the facilitator will go out there and use those as guidance and nothing more. One could see what a. You know, the facilitate I'm just gonna back up and sort of reorient us to our various mapping mods. So if we could sort of figure out our CISAs, then those would also, I would say, double as the areas for the facilitator would have to facilitate. And then within that, we've got the colored portions, which would be the recommended, the guiding groupings of school districts for their merger study committees.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: So we are recommending what the new school districts should be.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We are recommending, yes, you can see that from a upper level, which is why, if you got ideas for adjustments, could totally see one right up in your neck of the woods.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: My neck of the

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: woods. Exactly.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: But again, the study group can go outside of that recommendation if it's advisable. They say, oh, it makes more sense to pull you into this one and see about it. People on the ground.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Guidance only, but the facilitators. There are guidance.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Like I said, I could see an adjustment I would make in my area, you've got one in your area, before we even handed it off. But they're not limited to that. I mean,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think one of the goals of larger study committees, of course, is regional high schools and middle schools. And probably there are areas where we have violated that idea in my map, and so we do, we should think about that. I shouldn't say violate, it is not optimized. Missed it. Update, Matt?

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: 72 is put on, it is gonna be voted by a role, they have not started calling it fully yet.

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: One more on here.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: What's that? I don't

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: think we can do I when we've done all the

[Speaker 0]: rest. Confirming I might have something.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: The that may be more of a reason means that that a for instance, the the public part. And that and that will you know, if if we sort of play the long, think about how this is all gonna work out in the end, I suspect that that will be probably part of a conference committee discussion.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: This

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: under eye needs to be adjusted because currently the trigger for the foundation formula is new or large districts being operational. We can't put in And we are now making that process a little fuzzier, a little more like, how many? So then you So I've asked as a means to think about this. Can you put in a date certain? Do you say once there are 75% new or larger districts?

[Speaker 0]: Can you put in language that just says, irregardless of your districts, this goes to effect by 2030?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We could. I'm not sure that would have the amount of support in order to make it out of this committee. But what I will say is I think that's gonna have to be a conversation at the end anyway.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Are there superintendents who superintendent districts span more than one CTE region?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: More than one CTE region. What do you mean

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: by the you say superintendent districts?

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Well, I'm sorry. I just don't know how to read this math. Where I

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: think confusion lies. It's not superintendent districts. It's superintendent district where they meet together as

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: multiple That's

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the word I'm trying to come up with. Regional groupings where there

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: are meetings. I'm not trying to be dumb or offensive. Are there superintendents who the districts that they cover, that they are superintendents of, are in more than one tech center? Like some schools that they cover in this tech center and some schools that they cover are in this tech center.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It gets kind of confusing because like you could be the superintendent of Colchester. There's no CTE there, but your kids go to two or three CTEs.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: At league region, all of the kids go up to North Country Tech.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: that's not really the model thus. No. Okay.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I mean, CTs are, it just different everywhere.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Some of

[Speaker 0]: it has

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: to do

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: with programming. Yeah. Like some kids go to LA, some kids go to, in my area, some will go to LA, some will go to St. J, depending on they're Or they

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: don't even offer certain programs. CTEs, I think every CTE has a catchment area in statute. They have an advisory report. But kids can go beyond that if the program's not offered or the program is full. Alright, what do you say we go up? One vote on something. We'll do this bill and then come back. Yeah.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Great. Sorry. Can we go over the map again? Because I'm still trying so hard to make something. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 0]: Sure. If you look on the map, just the small print just to the right of it, it has like a legend in

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the bottom. Let's go off and we'll head up to the floor.