Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: We're live.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Okay, we are live. So I can get second. It's in here. We're gonna spend, some time with the chair of the Commissioner of the Future of Public Education in Vermont. The final report was issued on December 15 guess we have so we have Jay Nichols with us who will introduce himself in a minute and I guess we want you just to kind of walk walk us through the key elements of the report that you want to make sure that we get embedded in our brains. Yeah. So, we we all know each other so we'll skip. We'll actually maybe some some people watching don't know everybody so I guess looking the usual. Over in that embassy would be Senator Ram Hinsdale. She may be looking for joining us up next to her. Hi Jay Nader. Well I'm just thinking about people watching. Oh Senator sorry. You're already there. Hey. Good afternoon. David Weeks representing Rutland County. And Terry Williams representing Walcott County. And then Seth Bongartz representing the

[Senator Steven Heffernan, Member]: Addison Steven Heffernan representing the Addison County County Fish Fish District. Grill.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: That's definitely quite accurate. Okay. You are on. Thank you for joining us.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Absolutely. Do you want me to share my screen or are you all set?

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Well, we have the report unless you have slides as opposed to the reports.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: I don't have slides. I'm just thinking about people at home, but I don't need to share it and I don't know if I'm technologically capable of doing it correctly, but it's up to you, Senator.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: It's posted, right? It's posted. It's posted. Go ahead, Jay. We don't have to chair.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Jay Nichols, I'm the Executive Director of the VPA, but I'm here today as a chair on the Commission on the Future of Public Education of Vermont. Just

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: for people watching, VPA is Vermont Princeton Association. Yeah.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: That's correct. Thank you, Senator. I'm really trying to come at this from the from the commission but you're right. I represent the Vermont Principals Association in my regular job. Here today, I'm representing the commission which was made up of a number of people that were appointed by the legislative body in the governor's administration. The vice chair of the commission is chair of health education Peter Conlon. I don't think he's going to make it today but he said he might drop in so we'll see if he shows up in your room. So, essentially, the can you hear me okay? I'm using the earbuds, so

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Yeah, I can hear you.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Okay, great. The Commission had essentially five areas provide findings for consideration for the General Assembly. And I'm just going to go through the recommendations if that works for the committee. I'll do the first one and then stop and let you ask any questions or make any comments you want. Does that cadence work for you folks?

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Yes.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Okay. So the first section for the committee was charged with was recommendations for what roles, functions, decisions

[Senator David Weeks, Vice Chair]: should be

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: a function of local control and what roles, functions, or decisions should be a function of state level control. So I'm not going to read through this, but I'm going to touch on some highlights. We continue, the Commission believes that policy level decisions should continue to be made at the local level, with the understanding that some policies will be established through legislation and or rules by the State Board. We believe that the policies that are required must be approved by school districts with the understanding that they must at least be as stringent as the state's model policies. We also believe that the vision for public education should be jointly set at the state level by the state board and agency of education with opportunities for meaningful engagement by educators and members of the public. And the Commission reaffirmed its responsibility of the general administration, I mean the General Assembly and the Administration to work in concert to ensure that the State Board and AOE are sufficiently resourced to co lead this work. If we are serious about education transformation, we need to make sure that the Agency of Education and the state board of education have the resources necessary to do the work that they need to do. We also feel that local school districts, regardless of what size those new districts might be, should be provided with autonomy and the authority to implement and adhere to the vision and standards for public education set by the State of Vermont. And that the state should provide appropriate levels of oversight and professional learning and resources to help the districts meet statewide strategic priorities. The Commission recognizes that this is a significant consideration that warrants further exploration and discussion between the General Assembly, the AOE, and the State Board. So, if the, in a way of example, if the state board says, we want to do X for in reading, and these are the standards that are going be filed in reading, and the agency needs the resources to help the field in professional learning to implement that, then as a state we need to provide the resources necessary. So that happens and that districts are not left completely on their own. We also agreed that the state should create a standardized simple ballot format for the electorate to use when voting on any budget amount in addition to the amounts of funds provided to the district. This is what we call the supplemental spending. So any district that wants to spend more than whatever the educational opportunity opportunity payment from the state is, assuming we go to the the foundation formula, that would be voted on by the members of a community. Remember that if we make this change, they're not going be voting on school budgets anymore. The school budget amount is going be told to them. But if they decide in whatever the new district configuration is, that they want to spend more than that, then they would have the opportunity to go to the voters up to a certain percentage. And there's language in Appendix D of the full report that shows what the ballot could look like. And you folks will be having some talk and testimony on that. I know that the Tax Commissioner's Office is going want to talk to you little bit about that as well. We were split a little bit on that language and you'll see that in the appendix. Here's what the bottom line comes to. Although we agree on most of the language, about half the members of the Commission felt that the last part of the ballot should just say the supplemental education spending is going to be an increase of X dollars above the amount of the foundation formula. The other half of the Commission said we should also have language in there that says and we expect that to increase your tax rate per $100 by X. And we're pretty split over that. So that's the decision that if we move forward with X-seventy three in a simplified ballot, that the General Assembly is going to have to address. This is a big one. He also came to the conclusion as a commission, not unanimously, but pretty close, that the state should couple health insurance collective bargaining with negotiations on salaries and other compensation. So, although the Commission did not have time to take testimony on the issue, the majority of Commission members felt that compensation and benefits, including health insurance, should be negotiated collectively at the same level. Now, we did not decide or make a recommendation should that be done at the state level for both insurance and other compensation for teachers and other school district employees, or should it all be done at the local level. But the feeling, the majority felt that it should be at one level or the other. And that's the end of A. Do you have questions in Section A that you'd like to ask or comments?

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Any questions so far? Okay, I don't not so far, Jake.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Okay, everybody's okay with what we mean by coupling?

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Yes.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Okay, perfect. Thank you. So the second area that we are asked to report on will be any necessary updates to the roles and responsibilities of school district boards as well as the electorate itself. So, we put a note in here that we thought was very important. It's the consensus of the Commission that even under the provisions of larger systems as envisioned by Act 73, most of the current central functions of school boards and electorate should stay the same. Listed below are recommendations that either require a change in law or that commission members feel need to be emphasized. So first, we felt the legislature should examine the laws governing annual meetings and ensure they comport with changes that are contemplated in Act 73, while providing as much opportunity for citizen participation as possible. Obviously, citizens are going to lose the right to vote in annual budgets, unless it's a supplemental budget. So there's going to be some changes that the Legislative Council is going to have to help you folks with to make sure that the green book lines up with wherever you end up in terms of district configuration. We did say we think districts should be required to meaningfully engage with voters on budget use and development. So even though they're not to actually develop their own budget plan for approval by the voters, once they get a certain amount, we feel it's very important that the public is involved in that and can help them set priorities for their school districts in terms of how that money is going to be spent, what programs matter the most to those communities, so that there's actual authentic community feedback and engagement in the process to the degree possible. We also felt that compensation for school board members should be established at the state level. We think that the legislature could do that with a consultation from appropriate stakeholders. And we think it should be separate from the foundation formula. In other words, the upper education opportunity payments to inform appropriate levels of compensation for board members and districts throughout the state. Consideration should be given to the size and scope of responsibility. Give an example here. School board members will serve a small single town district, if any of those still exist, may not get the same level of compensation of over school board members who serve boards and oversight of multiple schools and former school districts. Now, the reason we don't want this to be part of the foundation formula, in my experience, board members very seldom will raise their own pay, right? And if they do raise their pay, people are going be like, well it's taking money away from our kids. So we think that should be separated. You go forward with much larger school districts than we currently have, it's going to be a lot of work for these volunteer school board members. We think they should get some type of compensation and be protected from that. And we do think that these races, if we don't do that, may not be very competitive and we want to make sure we have people running for school boards. The last research I saw was that almost 90% of school board elections in Vermont, either one person runs or nobody runs and the board has to go out and recruit somebody. So we don't want to fall into that trap. We also felt that school district boards should continue to determine the education policies of the school districts within the constraints of state and federal law, which is current practice. And another a little twist is we feel the new school board should have student members. So that student perspective is taken into account when making decisions for the school system. So that's the second section. Any questions or comments from the committee on that?

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Always checking. I'm thinking about making sure I understand that in the context of large districts that are contemplated by Attack 73, you've said a couple of times in here that district board should continue to determine the educational policies of this school district. And I'm just trying to get my arms around what that means practically in the in the context of Act 73.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Let me give you an example. Yeah. Right now in the state of Vermont, for example, let's use transportation. School districts don't have to provide transportation. The vast majority of them do and they decide on a transportation policy for their whole system. That's an example of that. So let's say you form a new school district that involves like a a current supervisor union, a couple other scooters, and they're all combined together. Lots of different governance structures. As a new board comes into place, they're gonna have to set that policy, and it's probably gonna be a little bit different than it was for each of those towns when they were on their own and ultimately, that board will do that. That said, they still must follow, you know, any state law or anything that's set as state board rule.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Yeah okay, I get that that happened to it with the confines of the well I'm just trying to get my arms around what some of the things would be that they'd be. You gave an example, that's good.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Yeah that's an example, another example might be related to employee compensation, CBAs, what's gonna be a probationary employee. Maybe you've got four districts that are joined together and for their paraprofessionals. Probationary in one district means ninety days. Another district means sixty days. Another district means one hundred and twenty days. They all become one district. They're gonna have to those are a lot of the issues they're gonna have to wrestle with. There's a lot of practical application that these school boards are gonna have to wrestle with as you become new governance entities. Okay to keep moving? The next one we had no testimony. Nobody seemed that interested in it. We could skip it if you want. Joking there. So a process for communities served by a school to have voice and decisions regarding school closures and recommendations for what that process shall entail. This was the area that we heard the most comments in the Commission. If you looked at the survey results that were forwarded with the report, there's about 5,000 of those and this was the number one issue that was brought up. So let me walk you through this. First of all, the process for school closures initiated by the state that are set forth in title sixteen one hundred sixty five, the commission does not make any recommendations to change this statute. This is where the state board and the ages of education can come in and close the school, you know, for some major safety concern. Maybe their roof's gone off, maybe they've got all kinds of mold and they have to close the school. That doesn't change at all. What we're talking about here is as a commission, we can envision a time when a new bigger school board may recommend that a school be closed or repurposed because of some local priority or community goals. And before a school board considers whether to close a school or parts of a school, the commission we set forth basically a default recommended process, which could be altered by articles of agreement approved by the newly formed district as set forth in other considerations paragraph two below that you'll see. So, in other words, if they don't come up with a new governance plan that says how they would approach if they decide to close the school, then they would go back to these default articles. The first thing that we recommend is that the school board would form a steering committee to lead the work of considering potential school closure or repurposing. And the steering committee could have a school board member or two on it, but it also doesn't have to. That board, I mean the school board would hold multiple meetings, no fewer than three, with a potential school closure discussion on the agenda. We recommend this starts as early as possible. We didn't think there should be a statutory recommendation necessarily, but unless there was a crisis situation, these discussions ideally should begin at least eighteen months in advance of potentially closing a school or repurposing. By repurposing, an example would be, let's say you have a K-eight school, it's been a K-eight school for one hundred years, and you decide in our new bigger system, that's just going to be a K-twelve school. And the third through eighth graders in that school are going go someplace else. To make that level of change, we think there needs to be a lot of communication with the community so that everybody has an opportunity to share their concerns, support, or voices against whatever that proposal might be. We then said either an advisory vote or a public input survey should be held and conducted in the towns or cities directly affected by the potential school closure or repurposing. We could not agree on which one this should be. An advisory vote obviously means your town clerk has to be involved. There's some cost to that. A public input survey doesn't cost anything. But we can see times where either one of those or both of those would make sense. We feel the steering committee should make a recommendation or recommendations regarding school closure or repurposing to the school board. And then the decision as to whether or not to close a school would be held by a majority vote of the entire school district. This is the new, the citizens in all this new structure, whatever the structure might be. And that the ultimate decision should seek to ensure that students are afforded quality educational opportunities in an affordable, sustainable, and equitable system. And then there would be opportunity to appeal if 5% of the voters in the school district within thirty days asked to do that. And the appeal would not go to another vote of the community like it does now. The appeal would first be submitted to the agency of education who would complete who would collect the complete record from the parties. And then they would send it to the state board. And the state board would have a final to say on whether or not the school was closed or repurposed. And I want to touch on one other part before we open it up, and then I'll read this verbatim. The Commission notes that it has received many requests, and I do not know how many hundreds probably, that it recommend a binding vote of the towns or cities served by a school that a district board is considering closing or repurposing. Instead, the Commission trusts that people in the municipalities served by a school that is proposed to be closed or repurposed will use the opportunity to persuade the voters of the whole district to maintain the status quo if appropriate. Addition, the Commission recommends the above appeal process which creates the right of an appeal to the State Board of Education. Now, in the wake of Act 46, Senators, a number of people, a number of citizens seem to think that citizens can stop a school from closing just automatically by law. That's not the case. It's never been the case in Vermont. School boards have that authority. Where it has changed is under Act 46, many of the articles of agreement, remember the voluntary mergers? Many school districts did put in their articles of agreement that you can't close this school or this school or this school unless the voters of that town agree to close it. So we felt this was the best approach forward to try to split the needle a little bit on that. To not give any municipality veto rights, but to also give them a fair opportunity to be heard by the larger school district community. Questions on section C?

[Senator David Weeks, Vice Chair]: Again, thank you, Mr. Chair. So Jay, the vote by the majority of the entire school district for a closure or repurposing of the school,

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Actually, I think that's going be up to you folks. I don't want to speak for the

[Senator David Weeks, Vice Chair]: whole person on that.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: But I I think it would be binding.

[Senator David Weeks, Vice Chair]: Because I think, you know, a couple steps up, you have a input survey, right to kind of get a lit test and then you have a vote.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Yeah I think it would be binding. You may have to make some statutory changes to make that the case And do remember that if and please remember if there were articles of agreement that said differently, then the articles of agreement would hold it would hold the day when these new entities form.

[Senator David Weeks, Vice Chair]: Okay. And again, you may have said because you're moving pretty quick. Is that the case now that if within a district that they have a potential school closure or repurposing that there is a binding public building as opposed to school work?

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: No, it's up to the school board unless in their articles of agreement when they formed under Act 46. Yeah. They put in their articles that each town had the veto power not to have their school closed and many of them do have that. That's the that's the issue in a few places right now where they're the boards are trying to close schools and the one local community is saying everybody else thinks we should close but we're not going to and that community has veto power because that's what's in their articles of agreement.

[Senator David Weeks, Vice Chair]: Okay. Then I'll take this to the next step. Do you have a recommendation on whether we should have like a template of binding processes across however many number of school districts we end up with that they all operate with the same survey, voting, school board process.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: I think that's up to you. We decided not to go that far. We decided to leave it up to you and just make recommendations. If I speak right now, I'm going be sharing my opinion, not the commission's opinion on that, Senator.

[Senator David Weeks, Vice Chair]: And your opinion is what?

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: I thought you could ask that. I think we should have a default standard.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Okay. Thanks.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: You're welcome. Will just say there, remember, the Supreme Court has upheld that it is your responsibility as the General Assembly. Any other questions or comments on Section C?

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: No, just we're having a discussion that the district where I live, the board, after a process with the communities and with the entire district, voted to close two schools.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Other places have done that too.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Took about Grand Isle. It took a full year of process and then they voted a few weeks ago to close a couple small schools.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: I saw that Senator. Yeah. Grand Isle went through the same thing with Isle Of Lemont and North Hero.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Yeah. Okay.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Section D, I will spend a lot of time on. It basically set a process for monitoring the implementation, making sure it's transparent. So we had all of our meetings. We went all around the state, we also had surveys and we're suggesting that to the degree possible you folks keep all of your work right out front and transparent. We talked a little bit about the things that we think are the biggest focuses. And I'm just going to skip down to we recommend that the AOE monitor the implementation of Act 73 by providing regular reports to you folks, to the legislative committees of jurisdiction. There may be more, but I'm thinking of Senate Finance, Senate Ed, Ways and Means and Health Education at least. That into the General Assembly at large. And then they provide regular implementation reports to the State Board of Education at a regularly scheduled monthly meetings. Now, we went into this as a commission, assuming the Act 73 in some way, shape or form is going be implemented and districts are going to look different than they do right now. So that was our whole consideration as we put this forward. If nothing changes, then obviously that would be different. But if there are going to be changes, we want to make sure Vermonters really have a clear transparent understanding of what those changes are going to be. Whether it's on the fiscal end, the governor's end, or anything else. So, that's basically all we really said in this section. Any questions on that? I mean you folks are you're being real transparent. Think that's we have to get Vermonters to have a good solid understanding of whatever it is that you folks decide to do. And I think we have to have Vermonters on board before we do anything because it is their education system.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: I'm interested that you, and I like the fact that you sort of spent a little time defining equity and discussing sort of a third of the way down the page, down page 13, the equity. One of the things I've wondered about is how do we, within the confines of equity, how do we couple it almost having it have the same meaning, the word excellence? So that we're always, so that excellence drives only one direction. I'm sorry, equity drives only one direction toward excellence. Yeah. Because I do always want to make sure that we don't say, Oh, you can't do that excellent thing because somebody else isn't. So I just want to, how we ensure that, I know that's what you're talking about because you said it actually in the paragraph below, but how do we make sure that equity always means driving toward excellence?

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Think that's a-

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: It's something this committee's been thinking about as sort of the theme that we used when we went around to schools this summer or summer, December, it was summer then. How do we ensure we're always talking about excellence?

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Yeah, think that's a great question. I think one of the things that's going be really difficult in the first two years, bigger doesn't matter. Let me rephrase that. The more change there is in the governance structure and the more adjustments that the new systems have to make, the harder it's going to be to ensure equity moving towards excellence in the first few years. Because I think there's going to be a lot of turmoil. I'm really worried about dismantling the system. I'm going to give you some testimony on that in my other role here in the near future, maybe next Tuesday. So I think the more stable we can make the transition process the better. And at the VPA we have a saying called Direct Direction Alignment and Commitment. We call it DAC. And we believe you have your mission, you have your focus, that you try to make sure everybody's aligned in that same direction and everybody's committed to that same direction. If you try to do 20 things well, can't. You've got to try to do three or four things really, really well. And as a school system, you've to be really clear on what your mission is and the direction you want to go. And you notice that we put inputs and outputs in here. We are definitely concerned about outputs. We want to see kids reading at a high level in the younger grades. We want to see high level courses and opportunities. I think the whole commission is in agreement with the Secretary that wherever possible we want to provide more opportunities for kids. We want to see more of our kids that want to, to go on to college and be successful. We also want to see kids going to trade schools and using CTEs to get into high paying jobs there. What we're not convinced is that, for example, NAEP test scores are really that important. We think local assessments are much more important, and we think the research kind of supports that. But I do think Senator, your point about working towards excellence is really important because if we don't do that, you're going to digress to the mean and we don't want that either. We want to hold high standards, but with high standards have to come high level supports, instructionally and resource based for students that are struggling and for students that are already achieving at a real good level so that they keep achieving even higher. Kind of a roundabout answer, I apologize for that. No, it's actually specifics.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Actually, find that answer helpful.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Okay, thank you.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Okay,

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: the next section, we were told in our charge, what other considerations do we want to share with you folks with the General Assembly? And so we had a couple. The first one is a major focus of seventy three is to improve the quality of education while controlling increases costs. And so we had unanimous agreement that regardless of what governance structures we end up utilizing, and we put here supervisor unions, school districts, supervisory districts, BOCES, and this was before the redistricting task force mentioned BOCES. The commission makes the following recommendations. We believe that students who change their residence within a school governance structure should be allowed to stay at the same school if feasible unless the student's educational team decides that moving to another school in the system is likely to benefit the student. So I'm gonna give you an example. And I'm gonna use my old district just because I live here. When I was a superintendent, if a kid moved from Berkshire, the town I live in, to Enisburg, he could actually move closer to the Berkshire School, still be in Ennisburg and have to switch schools. Because they were different school districts. And our lowest, our kids who were most transient tended to be kids, they might be migrant farmers, they might be people that are receiving, a lot of people receiving free and reduced lunch, a lot of students who didn't have a lot of financial supports. They're the kids that move the most. And you know when we would do grade checks through K through eight, we had kids that were moving six, seven times. Sometimes they left our complete system, like they moved to Swanton, okay? We can't do anything about that, right? But if a kid moved from Berkshire to Enisburg, why not let the kid keep going to school in Berkshire? So the committee was unanimous that whatever structures we get, we got to do a better job of letting kids go to school and not have to switch schools, especially when they're they might even be closer to the school that they were in before. And supervisor unions right now don't allow that. So if we're going to keep issues, we got to find a way to fix that. That's a fatal flaw and it hurts our most vulnerable kids repeatedly. The second big one that came up for the Commission was that we feel that all licensed educators should be employees of the overall school governance structure, not of a single school within a larger governance structure. Whatever that structure is, that would allow superintendents to better deploy educators to meet student needs and will provide more job protections for teachers in small schools. This already happens with special education teachers and we suggest this change should apply to all licensed teachers. By way of example, earlier this year I got a phone call from a school that has about 200 kids and they have a full time nurse. And she went out, I think I'm maternity leave but it might have been medical leave. They have two other schools in that supervisor union and the superintendent called me and said, what do I do? The nurse refuses to work in the other schools. And she's a full time nurse and she's in a school of like 75 kids and they decided that they wanted a full time nurse. And he said, I can't even bring her to the other schools for a day or two. And that's a flaw with any system like that. So somehow we've got to make these school districts the employees, the employee of the whole bigger thing, whatever you folks create as a bigger thing. Because right now the redundancy is killing us. I hear Senator Heffernan talk about that all the time and he's right. We've got to have a way that we can share staff. And if we're not allowed to share staff, then we're not gonna get the economies of scale that we wanna get.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Senator Weeks, I'd like to do that. Yeah. Thank you.

[Senator David Weeks, Vice Chair]: So I I know you choose your your words carefully. So, I'm wondering when you say overall school governance structure, it's a little vague. Do you mean the single district or all of the districts statewide? Are you talking about like a like a state employee or are you talking about?

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Oh, see what you're asking. No, I'm talking about the new structure, whatever you make it that has a board overseeing a bunch of schools, that structure would be able share those employees.

[Senator David Weeks, Vice Chair]: An individual district, an employee of an individual district, a new individual whatever size that may be.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: I mean if I had it my way we would not have supervisor unions, would just have school districts. No other state uses supervisor unions the way we do and we get rid of a whole bunch of redundancies, we'd have less business office staff, eventually less superintendents. I mean it would, we'd better share staff. So ideally we'd hopefully have less staff, less provisional licenses. But that's me. As a full group, as a commission we didn't really care what it was called. We just said common sense is the the boss is gonna be able share employees in a way that makes sense over the schools that the boss oversees.

[Senator David Weeks, Vice Chair]: Okay. So following on that premise, so did the commission had, did the commission ever explore whether teachers should be, employees of a state organization? No. Never. State salaries, no state standardized, no. Okay. You mean you didn't touch it or you didn't agree with it?

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: We touched it and it was clear there was going be no agreement in that and we didn't spend any time on it.

[Senator David Weeks, Vice Chair]: Okay. Thank you.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: You're welcome. So Also, go ahead.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: I was going to say, in terms of a teacher or a licensed employee moving from one school to another, that actually could be done now if the contract was cleared to that effect. They're actually hired at the district level by the superintendent and they could- No,

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: they're hired at the district level by the superintendent, but they're not hired at the supervisory union level by the superintendent.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Okay, see what you're saying.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: That's the issue.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Within a current district, they actually could be required to do that if it was clear in the contract that that is possible.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Well, when their current SU, they could too. Let let's say, I used and I'll use a real example. In Berkshire as, I mean, as superintendent of Franklin Northeast, I took Berkshire and Montgomery and I created a position that was a music teacher for the two positions, hired them at the supervisory union level and that person can go back and forth between Montgomery and Berkshire. Can't work in any of the other schools in system, but could work in those systems. So the more we can give superintendents the latitude to share staff by having them all be employed by the same employer, it's gonna help with all those things.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Okay, Thank you.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Okay. The next part of it was and and I know senator senator representative Collins not there. He has said a bunch of times the 4,000 to 8,000 thing is as practicable. We had so many people complaining about that. People in Vermont, a lot of people think that the only answer is 4,000 to 8,000, that the general assembly is not gonna listen to any other numbers. So we felt that if anything, the General Assembly should assuage those fears, those concerns and just say, you know, that was a guideline. We might have districts of 1,000 kids. We might have districts of more. I think a Canaan. I I don't know what what we do there. You know, I want to make sure that they have opportunities but there's they're not close to anything else. So, we just felt that that was worth noting and making sure that we don't get stuck on a number. And in my testimony next week when I come in from the VPA, I'm going to talk about a different number range that I'm hoping you'll consider. And the next thing is when districts are merged, we think there needs to be a reasonable period of time to let them develop articles of agreement for how they're going to operate. And then if they can't, senators, then we think the state board has to have a default like we talked about before. And if you can't come up with agreement amongst yourselves, then you will have to follow the State Board of Education default. Similar to what we tried to do with Act 46. Only it would be binding and schools could not divorce, school districts could not divorce from it as they have in the past. Lastly, and then I'll take any questions at all, we want to give you some feedback from from what Vermonters told us. The respondents were pretty clear and again we had around 5,000 responses and plus a lot of people online. They do want a public education system as equitable inclusive and student centered. They do want all kids to have access to well funded schools, safe environments, all those things we all believe in. And that Secretary Saunders has spoken very eloquently about regardless of geography or identity. However, the respondents, Vermonters overwhelmingly felt that the initial education reform process was too rushed, disorganized and had inadequate time for deep community engagement, particularly from vulnerable or historically underserved groups and those with boots on the ground, educators, students and local boards. So these are the survey results. Respondents also overwhelmingly felt that Vermont's education reform efforts must slow down and center the voices of those most impacted by the proposed changes. And again, then we're talking about students, families, and educators by prioritizing equity, belonging, and local community identity over rushed structural changes that risk deepening disparities. The next part is just how surveys work, talks about direct impact groups, secondary groups, and community impact groups. I'm not going to spend any time on that. And then I'll finish with in the public input sessions and public comments, there were numerous concerns were raised about the governor's education overhaul plan. We did try telling people that the five districts was a starting conversation, but the concerns thematically were that the plan by most Vermonters, at least they reached out to us, is seen as top down, inequitable and lacking community input. And nothing in any of the conversations has indicated any change in that. As you know, there was broad opposition, Republicans, Democrats to the five district plan. And so accordingly, as you folks move forward with Act 73 implementation, we think you need to take the time to ensure the educational system transformation is transparent, upfront, and is easily understandable for all Vermonters. And that it will solve the issues that we're tasked with addressing. So we strongly encourage the members of the General Assembly to carefully review our report and all the accompanying materials including the surveys. And it's clear that any transformational decisions as contemplated by Act 73 are in your purview as I've told every Vermont citizen I've talked to.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: It's up

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: to the legislature and the governor. That said, as you know, Vermonters care deeply about public education and local control. In order for a Maine energy change to be successful, a critical mass of Vermont citizens have to be supportive of that change. So we encourage you to take the time to ensure that major policy pursuits have the positive overall intent they claim to. Last night I walked out of the gymnasium, I still wrapped games up this area for the kids in seventh and eighth grade because we can't get any refs. And three people asked me about Act 73 in the lobby and said can you just tell them to leave our schools alone? And I said, it's not my job to tell them that. And I talked to them about you, you're the same people that are telling me that we pay too much for taxes. So the general assembly is in kind of a quandary here and they're they're going to try to find their best path forward. But but people are talking about it which I guess is a good thing. And so I would leave it with that from the Commission's perspective and take any final questions or thoughts that you might have.

[Senator Steven Heffernan, Member]: My thought is the silent majority. Surveys often are filled out by people that are truly concerned. So we have 5,000 people, which relatively speaking is a low number for how many people that are in this state, but it does show the concerns that are out there. My concern is the silent majority that have just been paying their taxes and made their point during the last election that they get hurt. Nobody wants to rush, and this is more of a statement than a question, obviously, but I think both committees, House and Senate, have heard, take it slow, and we're moving at glacier speed, that we are taking it slow, and that everybody, we're gonna try to address everybody's concerns, but like anything, they don't always get, everything doesn't always get covered, but we are going to do the best that our committees can do.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Yeah, let me respond to that with two quick statements. Thank you for saying that. First is Afton Partners Group who did the survey work said that for a state our size to get 5,000 responses in like essentially a six day period was unheard of. They were amazed at how many responses we got. However, to the silent majority part, you are absolutely right in that we don't know what the silent majority really knows because a high percentage of the surveys that were filled out, and I'm trying to be transparent here, were by people that work in the education field and by parents who have kids in school. And the results do show that. So we don't really know for sure where, know, I don't know, 80% of our community members don't have kids in schools. So, you know, I I think we do have to really take their concerns into consideration too to your point, Senator.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Thank you, Jeff.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: You're welcome.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Okay. Thank you. So maybe more for Tuesday than today because you'll be in a different role then. I think that's the, you know, it's not a surprise to hear you say that, you know, you referenced the quandary of taking time to get it right, which is the way certainly I have always wanted to legislate and I think I think most of us do. And yet we have on the flip side of that, we have a situation where we've been buying down the tax rate every year for the last several years and I think if do it again this year I can't imagine it will happen another time after this. So we, and in fact I think the only way we can justify doing it all this year is if we really have put something in place that is going to drive down or keep down the rate of increase in school budgets so that voters because I think of the as I always say about this my biggest fear is voters taking immediate action budgets and we want to make sure that we don't put them in a position where that's what actually ends up happening. So we have the quandary of wanting to get it right which you know I get the longer term for that and at the same time we have to make sure that we're doing something effectively right now to guarantee that we're bringing down that rate of increase and I'll also say that like just saying well take this out and take this out and put it in your general fund doesn't help because there's no money in the general fund. And I get the lot there's logic I get the logic potentially and I also but I but that's just the dilemma you call the quandary that this committee and the whole legislature is facing and so at the same time we're trying to do the longer term work and get it right we have to be thinking about how we're going to with some immediacy begin to bring down the rate of increase so that voters have confidence that we're getting off this treadmill that we've been on the last several years of putting money as I call it into the funnel or paying down the tax the rate then it only makes it worse the next year as we are experiencing year to year. So that's more of a, there's really not a question, that's just a thought and something we can talk about more on Tuesday perhaps.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Yeah that sounds good. I did send you and a few people just some thoughts that I will touch on on Tuesday. I've looked at the modeling on the maps on the financial end, especially in Chittenden County. I'm going to spend some time thinking about it over the weekend. I'm really worried about it. And I don't see an easy answer, especially for districts that are already, you know, they're paying their employees pretty well and already have really full classes. So I think there might have to be a regionalized approach. I'll make suggestions but I'm really glad you guys have to make the decision to be honest with you.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: Thank you very much for coming in.

[Jay Nichols, Chair, Commission on the Future of Public Education; Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association]: Of course.

[Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair]: That was a good discussion. I enjoyed the discussion. So we can go off that or maybe just stay on mute for ten minutes. Could also start the next quick break.