Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: We're live.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So welcome, everybody. This is a joint hearing of the House and Senate Education Committees. And in the in the senate education committee, in particular, we have been taking a fair amount of testimony or actually a lot of testimony from the bees, if you will, and superintendents gaining reaction, comments to the the map that was put on the table, especially the hybrid map that was put on the table by the administration as kind of their their best attempt at a a map to get the discussion started. And so the senate education committee is doing this for what will be sort of a portion of that.

[Patrick Reen (Superintendent, Mount Abraham Unified School District; VSA Trustee)]: And

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: so we're starting with by the

[Patrick Reen (Superintendent, Mount Abraham Unified School District; VSA Trustee)]: way, I'll turn it up in a

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: second. I think we're gonna start with Amy Miner, president of the Vermont Superintendent's Association. But and as you come up, any comment you wanna add, chair or comment?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Addison-2, House Education Chair)]: No. Happy to be here. Thank you for organizing this.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And if you wanna come up together in whatever form you wanna do it, that's fine.

[Brooke Olsen-Farrell (Superintendent, Slate Valley; VSA President-elect)]: We kind of need to chat first, so

[Rep. Emily Long]: Well,

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: for having us here this afternoon. Great to see everybody. For those of you who don't know me.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We we should probably introduce ourselves quickly around the table just because we have some people in the room who haven't been there before. So so

[Rep. Emily Long]: Representative Emily Long from New Britain.

[Brooke Olsen-Farrell (Superintendent, Slate Valley; VSA President-elect)]: Representative Brady from Melissa.

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Milton/Georgia)]: Chris Taylor of Milton, Georgia.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Senator Kesha Ram from Stelchittenden.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Nader Hashim, senator from Windham County.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Senator Dave Weeks representing Brook.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Seth Bongartz from the Bennington District.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Addison-2, House Education Chair)]: Brett Peter Collin, Addison 2. Senator Terry Williams representing Brooklyn County. Senator Heffernan representing the Addison County District.

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Milton/Georgia)]: Representative Ram Hiner, up in Manchester.

[Rep. LeAnne Harple (Orleans-4)]: Representative Lee Ann Harful of Orleans 4.

[Rep. Emily Long]: Representative Leland Morgan, Grand Isle County and West Milton.

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: Great, thank you so much again for having us here today. My name is Amy Minor. I'm the current president of the Vermont Superintendents Association and I'm currently serving as the superintendent of schools for the Colchester School District. We are here on behalf of the Vermont Superintendents Association. Our testimony today will reaffirm the positions that USA has consistently articulated from last legislative session in prior testimony to both committees. So thanks again.

[Patrick Reen (Superintendent, Mount Abraham Unified School District; VSA Trustee)]: I'm Patrick Reed, trustee for the Vermont Superintendent's Association and Superintendent for the Landy Abraham Unit Project.

[Brooke Olsen-Farrell (Superintendent, Slate Valley; VSA President-elect)]: And I'm Reporter Holston Farrell. I'm the Super Superintendent for Slate Valley Unified School District, and I'm the President-elect for the Vermont Superintendents Association. And I think Patrick and I wanted to start by providing a little context. Patrick and I both lead districts that transitioned from supervisor unions to unified school districts under Act 46. We can speak directly to the governance, operational, and instructional benefits district based systems, which informed BSA's position on redistricting under Act 73. Each of our districts has had different experiences with consolidation. In 2019, a former Addison Rutland Supervisory Union merged to form Slate Valley Unified Union School District, serving approximately 1,300 students across four elementary schools, one middle school and one high school. The district's consolidation occurred in two phases. First, as a modified Unified Union School District, and the following year, when the remaining district, Orwell, was merged into Slate Valley through State Board action. From the onset, unification created both the opportunity and responsibility to operate more efficiently and sustainably. District operations were centralized wherever possible, reducing redundancy and strengthening governance coherence. Since unification, Slate Valley has reduced more than 45 positions over time, largely through attrition while maintaining services. Today, Slate Valley is among the lowest spending districts in the state and serves one of the highest poverty student populations in Vermont. In July 2022, the district took further consolidation steps. The Castleton Middle School was closed and sold back to the town of Castleton. Elementary schools were reorganized as pre K through six, largely using ESSER funds provided by the federal government, and the existing high school in Fair Haven was reconfigured to serve all students in grades seven through 12. These decisions were difficult but deliberate, community engaged, and focused on long term stability. Importantly, these structural changes have supported improved student outcomes. Despite low spending and high needs, Slate Valley has steadily increased academic performance over time and is among the highest performing districts in the region with student outcomes at or above state averages. The Slate Valley experience demonstrates that district based systems function fundamentally differently from supervisory unions. Unifications enables coherent governance, operational efficiency, and instructional alignment in ways that fragmented structures cannot. Lessons that are directly relevant as the legislature considers system design and redistricting under Act 73.

[Patrick Reen (Superintendent, Mount Abraham Unified School District; VSA Trustee)]: From the MAUSD perspective, so in July 2018, what were six school districts in the Addison Northeast Supervisory Union became one, the Mount Abraham Unified School District serving approximately 1,400 students. Patient significantly increased equity for students across our five elementary schools and one middle high school. Prior unification, middle school teachers could often identify which town a student came from based on what they knew and could do. That is no longer the case. Today, our students arrive with far more consistent preparation regardless of their home community, reflecting greater coherence in curriculum expectations and program. Becoming a unified district has also allowed us to respond more effectively and efficiently to changing student needs. We can now reassign staff across schools as needs shift from year to year or even within a single year, something that was extremely difficult to do under the supervisors union model. This flexibility has made us full form responsive to students and more responsible stewards of public resources. This also improves job security for staff. As an SU, we needed less staffing in one school, which was its own school district, and more staffing in another school, which was a separate school district, we would need to issue a reduction in force in one school and require the least senior staff member to apply for the job in the other. If they were successful in being selected for the job in the other school, their seniority date would be reset because they were now working for a different employer. This process took time and was unsettling for the person who received the reduction in force notice. Today, making the same shift can happen the next day, and there's no question about the employee's job security for this year. Since unifying in July 2018, we've reduced more than 40 positions, almost entirely through attrition, while continuing to perform around the statewide average on student performance measures. Largely due to unification, we are currently engaged in the critical work of examining operational efficiencies and rethinking educational delivery models that can improve learning for students, strengthen the teaching experience for educators, enhance affordability for taxpayers. This involves looking at using fewer buildings and reorganizing the grades served in the buildings we will use. That said, in MAUSD, towns hold the authority to close schools. Whether or not any of our towns would be willing to do so is quite unclear. Engaging in this work would be far more difficult, if not impossible, under our former structure as an institute. As a supervisor union made up of single town districts operating small elementary schools, our opportunities to find efficiencies are extremely limited. Unification has given us the flexibility and coherence necessary to better serve students and communities, both educationally and financially.

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: We thought both Brooke and Patrick giving some context would be important as we share our position on the maps and our position as an organization. So BSA wants to be very clear. We reaffirm what we have previously testified in January 2025, our position remains the same. Change must happen in Vermont's education system. Maintaining the status quo is not an option if the state is serious about improving the quality, equity and affordability. We agree that scale matters and we support the legislature's intent to pursue structural change. However, how scale is achieved matters and change must be intentional, research based and supported by state policy. As an association, we cannot and will not produce our own redistricting maps. That is not our goal, nor would it be appropriate for a professional organization representing superintendents across diverse regions of the state. Superintendents serve as executive leaders. We are charged with implementing policy and advising local school boards. School boards are the governing bodies with statutory authority over district structure, governance, and long term direction. In many cases, a superintendent's professional assessment of what may be more operationally efficient or educationally sound may differ from the policy direction or preferences of a locally elected school board or the voting community. For BSA to produce maps would place superintendents in the position of advocating for specific governance outcomes on behalf of communities and boards that we do not govern, potentially undermining local decision making, board authority and trust at the community level. Instead, VSA's appropriate role is to articulate research based principles and operational criteria that support student opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and system coherence. We can then support redistricting maps developed through the appropriate state and local processes that align with the principles that we believe in. This approach allows superintendents to continue to fulfill their professional responsibilities, preserve the integrity of local governance, and ensures that redistricting decisions remain grounded in both evidence and democratic accountability. We understand, however, that the emphasis is on maps. So in that regard, VSA supports redistricting that reflects clear research based guidelines. Our responsibility to articulate those principles so that state policymakers can evaluate whether proposed configurations are likely to achieve the goals of Act 73. The maps presented by Secretary Saunders were developed as models intended to conform to Act 70 three's parameters, including the 4,000 to 8,000 student enrollment target. BSA has consistently testified that this target is not grounded in research and it risks creating districts that are too large to deliver the intended efficiencies or maintain educational quality, especially when we are considering a Vermont context. As Patrick reinstated in his testimony in January, very large districts often introduce new administrative complexity and higher costs while diminishing the responsiveness to students and to the needs of the specific community. The 4,000 to 8,000 target has also contributed to mistrust because it lacks a clear research foundation and that very important Vermont specific rationale. BSA would like to reiterate the following research based principles that we have shared. Efficiency gains occur when small districts consolidate into moderate sized school districts. Very large districts often lose efficiency due to administrative and bureaucratic complexity. Lastly, true benefits come from unified governance, program alignment, and staffing flexibility, not from maps alone. In the written testimony that you have, you've seen we've put some citations and some other documents for you there. District scale must always be evaluated against student centered outcomes, including access to programming, instructional coherence, and equitable distribution of resources. BSA continues to strongly support a system of school districts rather than a mix of school districts and supervisory unions. Based on superintendent experience across the state, district governance will improve operational efficiency, expand student opportunity and access, supports more effective facilities planning, reduces governance fragmentation, and allows districts to respond more effectively to demographic and enrollment trends. We would also like to point out that the VSBA regions were created solely for association governance and association business. The VSBA's regions were never intended to serve as a template for school district configuration, essentially district maps. Similarly, reliance on historic regional high school infrastructure reflects past delivery models rather than being future focused on what students need, particularly as Act 73 requires strategic planning for facilities investments. BSA can support redistricting that adheres to the following guidelines. Establish districts statewide, not a mix of districts and SUs. Set a minimum district size of approximately 2,000 students that will have pre K-twelve continuity and a recognition that in some regions of Vermont, declining enrollment may warrant a minimum closer to 2,500 in some regions. We can support redistricting if it respects regional history, geographies, transportation patterns, and existing collaborations achieving minimum scale except in sparsely populated areas that provide a clear statutory and regulatory pathway to unification rather than relying on local processes to reinvent transitions. Redistricting must reduce fragmentation without creating overly large bureaucratic systems and must expand student opportunity rather than simply reorganize Vermont governance. Finally, we reaffirm that drawing and redistricting map alone will not deliver efficiency or opportunity. The state must also support districts in achieving school level scale and efficiency, make a firm commitment to capital investment for school facilities, allow non operating districts to designate compliant receiving schools, address rising healthcare costs that are consistent with the Vermont School Boards Association's proposals, implement Act 73 class size minimums with fidelity, and establish cooperative education service areas as recommended by the task force. BSA remains committed to working with the legislature, the Vermont Agency of Education and our partners to achieve meaningful research based change. We believe the principles that we've outlined here today offer credible Vermont specific path forward. Thanks for the opportunity to present. We're happy to answer any questions that you might.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: First question over here.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Hi, thank you. I think I have more of a comment. Perhaps it'll turn into a question, but, you know, if if if you have any thoughts on it. This is helpful testimony. I think there's a part that I agree with and then another part that I disagree with, and I'm curious on your thoughts here. So yeah, it's on page four regarding the superintendents being put in a position of advocating for specific governance outcomes on behalf of communities and boards that you don't govern. And I mean, I I I wouldn't expect my superintendents from Windham County to know the nuances and the geography of the Northeast Kingdom or Rutland necessarily. But I do think that as a group, know, collectively, they could come up with some pretty good ideas, far better than what I could come up with for, the Southeast Portion Of Vermont. And so I I think, you know, with with this this general concept of superintendents, you know, providing these sorts of draft maps for their regions, I I do think there could be some merit in there because, you know, they know the ins and outs of their regions. And and and I to your point of, undermining local decision making, I I I see where you're coming from because going back to the previous example of Windham super, superintendents making plans for, you know or or helping contribute to making plans for other parts of the state that they may not be familiar with, it it would undermine, local decision making. But it's also similar to how we, in this role, could also be potentially undermining local decision making by putting out maps for areas that we have no idea about. I mean, I've only been to the Northeast Kingdom a couple of times, and I don't know much about education in the Northeast Kingdom just as I suspect folks from Chittenden County may not know much about education in Windham County. And so having us we're in that same challenging position where it could potentially be undermining local decision making if we are making these maps for areas that we don't know much about if we're not from there or representing that area. So I guess there isn't a question in there, but if you have any thoughts, happy to hear.

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: I think I will respond by just saying, we work for our school boards. And so there is a slight potential in some areas conflict of interest where we may see a path, but our bosses, our school boards want us to advocate for different path. So that then puts the superintendent of this position. Do I advocate for the will of my board who is my bosses employing me? Or do I advocate for something that I can see that would create efficiency? And as I do that, I will be out of the job because that's not the will of my board. So I think there's a little bit of a conflict of interest there depending on how that were to transpire.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Senator Weeks. So if I may, I'm gonna try to put Senator Hashim's comment into a question. First, let me just say that I have complete admiration for for what you guys do. I know you're in a difficult position. I do know that you have opinions. But to put Senator Hashim's comment into a question, may refer back to your memo, page six, at the very top, paragraph three, about respecting regional history, etcetera, etcetera. We don't get input from the superintendents, whether individually or en masse, about how to approach these districts. If it's not you, then who is it? Who should we be seeking out to assist us in this task?

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: I think part of what we wanted to share today is kind of what the research says and the framework that we can support without us getting specific as to school A, school B. I think we all do have opinions. And I think we definitely want to be sharing our voice and reacting to maps that may be shared with you all. I think for us to, on our own as an organization, just offer up a map would put us in a precarious position as an organization itself. But I think there are absolutely conversations to be had. If there was a map that was 2,000 student size for school districts, that was SVs across the board. Those are gonna be types of maps that we're able to get. And so we're trying to give you the parameters that VSA as an organization, as a whole would support. So we're giving you that conceptual framework today. So

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Milton/Georgia)]: I totally agree with the sentiments of both the senators. Did a great job of heading me off in the past because I was totally going to ask. And obviously, now I'm not going do that. But I do agree with both of their points that who do we go to? And are we going to create maps and do this back and forth? Nope, that one's not good. Create another map? Nope, that one's not good. I mean, we're going get into a perpetual back and forth. But that being said, could you expound some on page six with number four, provide a clear statutory and regulatory pathway to unification rather than relying on local process to reinvent transitions. And then another point, maybe I'll The other point was, if we are going to move to larger districts, even if they're 2,000, 2,500, what is the need to still have the cooperative education services areas at that point?

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: I think I'll start with that as an example. I think in Sherry Souza's region in Vermont, there has been some great benefits from what they have done cooperatively. And there may be some efficiencies in some areas for us to work together in a region to share some costs. And I think we would brainstorm on what those areas are, but that was part of the redistricting task force proposal that we were not in opposition to. So that's why we wanted to include that in our-

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Milton/Georgia)]: Sure, and if it was a bigger district, you would be doing that anyways.

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: If your district was larger, that would happen naturally in some areas for sure. I think for your other question connected to number four is if we are going to achieve scale through both school size using the minimum class sizes outlined in Act 73, and then thinking about that district size of 2,000, if it's not in statute to do that, then we're in that spot again, where you leave it up to local communities to potentially do that consolidation. And I think that goes back to the earlier point around why not have superintendents just put a map out? I think we've seen that it's very challenging for local communities in their local votes or for local school boards to make a really hard decision to close a school or to consolidate a district. We've seen conversations happen and conversations not move forward. And so that's what number four is talking about, that if we're going to make that step, there's going to be some statute that requires that.

[Patrick Reen (Superintendent, Mount Abraham Unified School District; VSA Trustee)]: My testimony last week, I think spoke to both the challenges. So in my district, we have both attempted to merge with another district and have attempted to reduce number of schools. We've done both of those really challenging things. And the only result has been more of those things we were trying to reduce. So I think that just helps articulate the challenge of trying to address this locally and why that statewide support direction is really important to make that a reality.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Addison-2, House Education Chair)]: Yes. Thank you for, I would say, clear and unambiguous guidance here. I'd appreciate that. I certainly understand the position that we've tried to put you in on many cases that maybe isn't the role. You know, on one of these, Amy, when you were speaking, you said we agree that scale matters. We support the legislature's intent to pursue structural change. However, how scale is achieved matters. Change must be intentional, research based, and supported by state policy. On the surface, I totally agree with it. Where I think we find ourselves hung up is show us the data. Patrick, years ago, you and your fellow superintendents at Addison County approached the AOE to say, We think we're a good model to join together. To me, it definitely feels right. But I'm not sure I can satisfy research based when just sort of on a common sense level and a feels right level, I could support it. But if somebody said, well, show me the research, it's gonna make a difference. I I don't think I could do that. And I think as we talk about these maps, I'm not sure we can satisfy that, not only to you, but to the public. And I I don't know how we get beyond that. Or of like, how do we get beyond that?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Sitting in these committees, I think, whether it's the superintendents, the principals, that I hope the committee sees that we really have to decide on a map that we're gonna go with. Because with every board or associations come forward, they all have a slightly different view. But they've all pointed that it's gonna fall right where it's supposed to on us legislators. And it's gonna be important. It doesn't matter what lines we draw, people aren't gonna like it. They're just not. But if we pick a map and say, This is what we're gonna go with, then we can use their help to say, Hey, now that you picked this, here's the benefits. Here's all the downfalls, because everybody loves to show us the downfalls. That's all we ever hear about is the downfalls. But we need to pick a decision on a map, so we can move forward, so that not only can they tell us the downfalls, but they can turn around and also, okay, here's where we can improve this, here where we can improve that. If we do nothing, the voters aren't gonna be happy. Taxpayers are not gonna be happy. And we haven't moved anywhere in two weeks. And it's depressing to sit in these committees and try to do what's right for Vermont, and just get rejections from everybody that stands across from us or sits across from us. We elect committees, but let's decide on something and move with it. More of a statement than a question? Sorry.

[Rep. Emily Long]: Yes. Thank you. So I'm not gonna comment from the same angle you've been hearing because I actually don't I do understand. Having been a long term school board member, I recognize the chance. But I also want to say how much I appreciate the framework that you've had shared and you've been consistently given working clean. Think you're very helpful. Legislator, as we move forward, to try to make research based decisions. And I would say that as much as it's a lot to slog through, there's probably a lot of research in the redistricting task force appendix E. So I keep referring back to that. My question, I know you have one, and it's unrelated to any of this, but you didn't mention specifically in this regional high schools that was in that Registraining Task Force. Now I'm going to say right up front, I recognize the challenges about creating a regional high school system in the state of Vermont. But my question is, do you think that we should be approaching redistricting and mapping with that in mind. Does the Superintendent's Association support that model, even though it's not fully fleshed out, and it's going to take some of best.

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: Yeah, I don't think we're there yet. I think our hesitation is it will require a significant amount of facilities dollars. I think we're focused on the 2,000 district size at this point, but knowing the state of facilities across the state and the economic crisis that we're in right now, it's challenging to think about setting a plan that may not be able to come to fruition if we can't find the dollars to do that because of the cost perspective. Great.

[Rep. Emily Long]: Then if I can just follow-up quick. Drawing lines on a map. Do you think it is important to draw lines on a map for a future state? And that's where I keep running up against as well, where it may be a future state. When we redraw lines and cause quite a bit of change in the state of Vermont, should we be keeping that in mind as a model that is effective and efficient?

[Brooke Olsen-Farrell (Superintendent, Slate Valley; VSA President-elect)]: And I do think that's one of the things that

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: we have in the testimony is the current kind of conversation was kind of looking back on an old model that was produced. And so I think why we're not there yet is we want to be even more future focused, but right now for the economics of Vermont, we have to make a step now and we see the step now as SDs of 2,000 students and this conversation needs to continue. We need to do something now, so let's make one leap and then continue to have that conversation. Yes and yes. That's very helpful, that's

[Patrick Reen (Superintendent, Mount Abraham Unified School District; VSA Trustee)]: exactly what I want to think. I can speak a little bit to the Addison County context again. There's a lot of things in Addison County. I haven't done quite a whole lot yet, but we've talked about a lot of really big things. I've actually testified to House Ed in the past around this idea of a comprehensive high school in Addison County. We even have a location picked out at the Junction Of 17 that's kind of centralized that Addison County high schoolers could attend and they walk down the hall to get their CEP programming instead of jumping on a bus and going somewhere. So that is something we've talked about before. As we're future focused and thinking about that, there isn't a building that exists there now, so that's something that's brand new and there's a big price tag, and we know that's a barrier. But that kind of thinking, I think, is the right direction to go,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: how we get those to feel challenged last. Yeah, absolutely great. Go next.

[Unidentified Legislator]: A comment on a question. I think I'm going to steal a little bit of the thunder of, I

[Brooke Olsen-Farrell (Superintendent, Slate Valley; VSA President-elect)]: think, testimony you're going to

[Unidentified Legislator]: hear right after us from any K Day and from, obviously, schools that are very different from my own largest district in the state. But when we keep saying future state, we're talking future state of schools. But really, again, I'm going to steal Sean McMahon's thunder, but he'll deliver it much more eloquently. I think the reason that we're swirling that the Education Committee is feeling more like a support group than a policy committee these days, and frustration and all frustrated and uncertain and nervous is because we're talking about the future state of Vermont and not just education and really interconnected deep challenges around health care, our regional and statewide economy, around education, and around our demographic reality. So I understand. I share the frustration. But I guess I see that we are all swirling in. I think, really, the reason maps are so hard is because they're not just about school districts. It's about the future state of Vermont here. But more specifically, from your testimony, well, I wonder, one, to me, the recommendation that we have heard many times of school districts, operating districts, I think that is a map that can actually be drawn quite quickly and easily by any of us. So I do think there's a bit of a map there. And two, my question, though, is about implement access to mass size minimums with fidelity. Do you mean we use that phrase a lot in education, I know. What do you mean by that? Why does that matter? What does it look like if it's with Fidelity? How does that impact these overarching goals of efficiency and opportunity?

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: I think that is in there because there is a fear that if we just draw a man and make new districts, we're not addressing one of the root causes of cost. And one of those root costs is very, very small class size, which results in decreased opportunities for learners. And so you can't have this conversation, unfortunately, it pains me to say it, but because of student enrollment, it is true, is very small schools. And so if you have very small schools, those costs more to operate. And so in that consolidation piece, I think an important part of that, 73 is those class size minimums and only where it's really not able to merge with another district. I think that conversation needs to be around, do we force closure of small schools? That's what the fidelity piece is, because we can't continue to have a number of exceptions to allow to have class sizes of four, five, six students. That's part of what is costing education to be somewhat.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator, who's going?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I know the house has to go.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: They said they can stay for a few more minutes.

[Brooke Olsen-Farrell (Superintendent, Slate Valley; VSA President-elect)]: Oh, okay.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So, yeah, I mean, I actually think you understood the assignment, as the kids would say. I think this is extremely helpful, and we need to get beyond the state of Max, for Max's sake. When I try to go back to what did Vermonters ask us to do, I think two things emerge. One is that they're going to have a hard time continuing to bond and pay for regional high schools on their own, or without us saying, You have to partner and figure this out together. And maybe we'll add more money, and we're gonna pay for 25 regional high schools, and here's the criteria. So if you all could maybe help us work toward that, that might get us somewhere. And then I think the other thing, having been here for Act 46, is there are great examples of what worked. And then we always knew there'd be poor communities that didn't, we used to say, Nobody wants to be on their dance card. And so, we do have a handful of examples where nobody wanted to partner with those schools, and it left those kids in a pretty difficult position. And that's the only reason I think people came back to us and said, You have to draw some of these lines. You can't just leave it up to the communities. Just love your reaction on those two things. So, if we move forward with something, when I agree 2,004 at the most, which our district is $4,000 and it's not like they have a lower per pupil amount just because they're bigger. I wish we would stop acting like that's true when we know, in most of, you know, VHI, all of the times we've consolidated, we haven't saved money. Anyway, I'll get out my soapbox, but what can we do to move forward with districts of more like 2,000 that really answer what voters are asking us to answer?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So what do you say to the we we had one of the had some superintendents in, and a couple of them in particular talked about the value of it happening more recently inward truce and how it draws those communities together in a way that never would, that would never happen if they were forced into the direction. And they were very eloquent about all the value that came and how Welland's worked because they went through the messy, difficult process of finally coming together.

[Brooke Olsen-Farrell (Superintendent, Slate Valley; VSA President-elect)]: I think I can speak a little bit to that because in Addison Rutland Supervisory Union, we had initially towns that wanted to merge, then we had Orwell who did not want to merge and was forced in under the by the state board. And I think for us, Orwell would have never come into the district on its own. But I think now, many years later, it has been a real benefit to that district. And they've been able to do building improvements that they were not able to do before. We've had shared services. We've really been able to come together as a district. And I think in some cases, any forced merger is going to be necessary. Don't think that people don't like change. And so it's challenging, And even those who came together voluntarily, it was still challenging. Would say, I'm in my night here, my superintendency, merged essentially twice. Since I started. Finally, I think we're hitting our stride in year eight and nine, right? Like you are a district. It takes a long time to really form those relationships and begin working together.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Let me ask another question if we have a couple more minutes. One of the challenges we face, I think, economic challenges, is the immediate challenge, where for the last several years, we've been able to buy down the rate, which we all know has then made it worse the next year. And I don't know if I remember what it written or not, but my sense is, if we do it this year, that'll be the last year we do it. And so we have the immediate problem of, like, what we're looking at for next year and the years after that without being able to buy down rates. So there's some sense, you know, senator Ruth has a bill into four caps. This isn't what the topic was for the day, but since you're here. So I guess do you have any advice for us about if My sense is that the quandary we face is either we do something to bring down the rate of increase in budgets for and I understand all the reasons why, you know, because we do that before around the state, we know all the reasons why that's really hard and challenging and versus voters taking MEDACs to budgets. And that's so I'm constantly thinking about how do we what do we do if if if my hypothesis is right and, like, we're facing, like, the need for action tomorrow or yesterday, what do we do to deal with that issue now? The immediate portion of what we're facing. Do have any thoughts about that, people like to dig out?

[Patrick Reen (Superintendent, Mount Abraham Unified School District; VSA Trustee)]: I guess my initial reaction is it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where, first, I wanna recognize the reality of cost containment. That is something that, to a point something made earlier, Vermont has a lot of work to do to make it more affordable to be here. I think about that when my own kids are 22 and 19, and what advice do I have for them about their future and where to be? It's very real for me. And it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where a one size fits all cost containment measure on education, which is only one piece of everything that needs to be looked at from the Vermont scale, doesn't hurt kids somewhere in some significant crisis.

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: BSA hasn't taken a formal position yet, and so I think you're just getting our individual answers. I think I would encourage conversation about what are the big drivers in a school district. And so if I make it now just Amy Miner talking for the Colechester School District, my two big drivers are salaries, benefits, healthcare. Healthcare makes up 12.2% of my budget. That's a big number. Transportation has gone up over 15% over the last three years. Those are two drivers that locally I have no control over. I think I will caution around just a blanket cap because it's going to impact every district differently. And so in my district, that's going to mean reducing programs for kids. I'm already over the education quality class size in four grade levels. Our enrollment has been 2,100 students since 2009. I'm not a school district that has declining enrollment. And I think we're right sized because we have class sizes of 23, 24. My electives at the middle school are twenty six, twenty seven kids in those classes. My community and my board worked hard for ten years to get a facilities bond. And so now we're working on the facilities bond. So if there's a cap next year, I have to pay my bond payment. So I'm to take away from kids and that would be hard. So I think there needs to be some analysis of what is that impact and what is the big drivers. I think there's some concerns that it will result in draconian cuts that will hurt kids. But we all agree, we're all sitting here, that we're in an economic crisis.

[Brooke Olsen-Farrell (Superintendent, Slate Valley; VSA President-elect)]: Yeah, I'm a district where probably the poster child for failed budgets. We've had 16 budget votes in eight years. Typically, our budget doesn't pass the first time, no matter what, even if there is potentially a tax buy down on the horizon. That does not seem to make a difference to our voters. We spend $11,500 per pupil, pretty much at the bottom in the state. We've cut 45 positions. I don't know what else we could possibly cut. And again, to Amy's point around health insurance transportation, those are things that are just totally out of our control. And reductions are going to hurt kids if we can't reorganize somehow. And right now, our articles of agreement have voters closing schools. That's not going to happen. It's just not.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you. Any other questions? Need to get the floor. So we are

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: adjourned. Are we staying here? And we'll stay

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: here. Okay, we'll then we'll go back

[Amy Minor (President, Vermont Superintendents Association; Superintendent, Colchester SD)]: on