Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: We're live.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We are live. We're back. Senate Education Committee on the afternoon, February 12, back after a short break. And we are shifting gears. Over the last couple of days. We've taken a little bit of testimony about the concept map was put forward by the chair of the House Education Committee. And we're doing a little bit more today. We heard from Terry yesterday. We heard from a couple witnesses in addition to the chair over the last couple of days. We're just continuing to work to sort of get a feel for where people might be on this and what's the thoughts and so, right. So first we're gonna hear from Susan Gloskey, the executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, and then a cotton water from the People's School Boards Association. So I kind of factored the two together, said, And that's just fine. And we have, I know we have Jeff Danna on So the for the record?

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Steve Seblowski, the Executive Director of Thor's Vermont School Boards Association, Director of the announcement, President of Vermont School Boards Association.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Will you be testifying with Jeff all at once or is he gonna be separate?

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: He'll be separate.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, so you two are

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: up now. Thank you very much. Thanks for inviting us to provide testimony on the proposed draft map that was introduced last week by Representative Conlon. As noted in earlier testimony to this committee, the VSBA has developed its own set of criteria for evaluating any proposals that emerge through Act 73, and those criteria are laid out in our position paper, which I know you've seen before but I have copies for you today. We supported redistricting task force proposal because it created the conditions for meeting these criteria and we encouraged the legislature to build upon the work of the task force by refining the proposal and filling in the details. So last night, the VSBA board evaluated Chair Conlon's draft map and legislative language using those same criteria from our position paper. In doing so, they acknowledged that it would be difficult for any initial proposal to meet all of the VSBA criteria, given that some of the criteria require significant analysis and planning. The real test is whether the proposal creates the conditions for meeting the criteria. For instance, earlier in the legislative session, the PSVA Board concluded that the hybrid scenario presented by the Agency of Education a few weeks ago containing 13 districts with a minimum district size of 4,044 and a maximum district size of 9,122 contained districts that were too large to maintain a strong sense of community within each district and would represent a drastic change from Vermont's current number of 119 school districts. For that reason, it was evident that the hybrid scenario did not create the conditions to meet the rest of the VSBA criteria. In contrast, Chair Conlon's proposal creates smaller districts ranging from nine eighty four students to 4,421 students. In general, the Conlon map recommends parameters for district size that are large enough to allow efficiency at scale but small enough to maintain a strong sense of community and personalized attention to every student supported by research. And in our written testimony we'd link to the BSA instructional scale policy brief and the citations that are in that brief. That said, we appreciate that the Conlon map was presented as a starting point needing refinement. The SBA board discussion last night indicated that the map does not always recognize and address significant variation across different regions of the state, including state demographics, community resources and other geographic considerations. For example, District Number 14 in the Northeast corner of the state covers a large geographic area which would pose significant challenges to maintaining a strong sense of community in the new district. If the committee furthers its exploration of the Conlon map, we urge you to seek meaningful input from district leaders and school boards in that area and other areas most affected by these changes and make adjustments to ensure that a strong sense of community can be built and maintained within each new district. In addition, we call for detailed cost analyses to determine if there are cost savings projected by the proposal. Turning now to the draft legislative language, the SBA appreciates the proposal's general approach to contracting and designation reflected in the draft language, which would require a school district to designate public or approved independent schools and enter into contracts when necessary to serve resident students. This reflects an intention to maintain access to educational opportunities for all students while redefining how those obligations are structured. Given the larger size of the districts in the Conlin proposal as compared to current district sizes, we ask you to consider whether school districts should be able to designate more than three public or approved independent schools to provide education for students who do not have reasonable access to a public school within the district. Additionally, it will be important to have a clear definition of reasonable access. I'll turn it over to Floor now. Thank you, Sophie. In closing, we appreciate the work that has gone into representative Comms Math and the conversation it has sparked.

[Flor Díaz Smith (President, Vermont School Boards Association)]: After facilitating our VSBA board meeting last night, it was clear that we and school board members from across the state have a great deal to offer youth, and we are committed to working alongside with you as this proposal moves forward. The general consensus is that this is a step in the right direction. However, it's still a starting point, a map rather than a plan drive and unified vision and mission for Vermont's entire pre K-twelve education system. And as Sue shared, while we see progress, we must now take the time to examine the areas that present geographical challenges or feel more like attachments rather than a properly integrated area of each state. As you continue this work, we urge you to ensure that the proposal fully addresses the criteria before It must recognize and respond to the significant variations across the region, student demographics, community resources, and geography. It must emerge from a collaborative, inclusive, and transparent process that meaningfully engage residents, families, and peers, and school boards. It must be supported by detailed cost analysis of current district finances and clear projected savings. We must include a comprehensive transition plan and timeline that minimizes disruption. I can't emphasize that enough, but timeline concerns our investment in safe and modern learning environment. If the intent is to create a more efficient, cost effective system that addresses rising costs, health benefits, mental health supports, facilities, and investment in first instruction education, then that must be clearly articulated. And most importantly, it will be grounded in data and evidence that shows how redistricting will improve student outcomes for all learners. As you move forward, we encourage you to consult directly with school board members from different regions of the state to understand how this proposal may work or not work on the ground. We are willing to facilitate this and make sure we think forward members of different regions. The committee needs more information and you need the right questions guided to set. As we look ahead, SBA remains committed to working with the legislature and the governor to shape the future of public and reach through this one. And as we have said before, real change takes steady leadership and it takes trust. It takes people willing to stay at the table even when it's hard. Our students need stability, fairness, and decision rather than real data. Together, we must ensure that our model of education system remains strong, steady, and center in equity for every student.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. There's one thing to explore a little bit. When you talk about districts size and sense of community, think about a student, Is it the student's community to the school and the relationship with the teachers and the principal? So I'm just wondering what the I understand community, certainly understand community at that level, but you're talking about district wide sense of community. So talk about that a little bit. What does that mean as opposed to what I just described?

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Sure, I can actually talk about that sort of from a personal experience as a school board member. I'm no longer a school board member, but I served as a school board member for thirteen years in your area of the state, and there was a small merger that took place between Pollitt and Rupert, and I was on the Pollitt School Board and the Meadoway School Board, which was a union elementary school district, but it merged into an entire pre K through 12 district. And you would think that that would be pretty simple and easy with two towns, but it was actually quite an endeavor. And one of the things that we did as a school board that was newly elected to this newly formed district is we had a retreat right off the bat with Jackie Wilson, our superintendent, and we spent an entire day together to come up with our goal for the next couple of years was to become one educational community. And that really involved our both of those towns understanding that they were now one educational community for all the students, pre K through 12, and that when decisions are made they need to be made in the best interest of all the students in that district.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, you're talking about, I described it from a student's perspective toward what you're talking about or from not just an administrative that's bigger than that but getting the communities to think of themselves as one. Yes. Okay. But

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: how do we do that if we don't affect the scope that an individual superintendent would would have responsibility for? How do we make any of those changes unless we change the scope of what a individual superintendent is looking at.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I think you would be changing the scope of what an individual superintendent would be in charge of because these districts would be larger than our current districts.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: That's exactly, okay, so that's exactly our point. So when you talk about educational community, we're just talking about a revised landscape, whether it's via a retreat or via analysis from various committees and and what have you. What's to prevent, you know, what what's to inhibit us from expanding the educational community to a larger footprint. You get it in all it and Rutland. I can't be done like for example in Roblin County because the superintendent has a wider fleet. It doesn't change the school. Doesn't change the principal. Doesn't change the people who live in the region. We all know, you know, what's happening in our valley. We know what's happening at Moore River. We know what's happening in Baldy. Can't the educational community be updated for a wider scope? What what it is that that philosophy?

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Think it's Do you wanna speak to I think it's the size of the district can make it very difficult for the entire community to be connected to the school board and possibly to their schools, but I'm thinking primarily right now to the school board. The school board really needs to, the school board is the bridge between the community and the district.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So is it about the students educational quality or is it about the school board's sense of responsibility to the community? Which one's going be the driver?

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I don't think it's either or, is it okay, but it's not either or, are trying to have a comprehensive, if you're going to

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: do education Which one would have priority, if either, Which or say it's

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: one will have a priority, right? If we have a vision for what we want for public education, we all have our different roles. So you can bring region together that is based on not just similarities, but it's like we said, it's a step in the right direction. It stays under 4,000 students. We're highlighting a couple of regions, Region 14 that has, if the graph doesn't work, bring more data from there. What will prohibit us from doing the work is not having an actual timeline, not having a phasing approach, not having the resources to implement. To do this implementation, it would take resources also to invest in education, to invest in first instruction, for example. It will take investment in facilities. It will bring all these regions together and it will bring, so that's what we're saying, let's continue to ask the right questions, bring the people that are going be affected in this region. We are all in agreement that this is a step in the right direction, but again, it's just a map right now. We don't have all of the data to see how it's going to work. I don't know if that makes sense. So, we need to continue to bring the data to make sure that you're putting the resources to make that available, and it's gonna be easier for school boards to make that happen if we have some carrots, we talked about this before, right? Some resources, so instead of becoming a fight against, telling our voters that their taxes are gonna go down by doing that, it's not realistic when we're not addressing the cost drivers. So you're setting us potentially to stay on. Right what I mean? So what we're trying to say is continue to ask the right questions, build the model and the vision that we have for public education. You don't need to get every single criteria right. So you do need to ask all these questions. We just can't get wrong public education. Yeah,

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: had a follow-up question. So it's a question that I asked the team that came in yesterday. We was here yesterday or the day before. And that's what's more important is that the student count, the 2,000 to 4,000 or 4,000, 8,000, or whatever scale we're going be talking on here or is it the number of principals that a superintendent is going to oversee the number of facilities because superintendents really don't have a role of meeting with every parent. They have a role of meeting with every principal. So, we're not changing anything. We're not changing AOE really. We're not changing principals and schools. We're changing this middle management layer. It's actually changing this middle management layer of superintendents. So, what's more important? Is it the number of students or is it the number of facilities? Because, you know, this is a, you know, just a curiosity question.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: It's not about facilities. At the end of the day, it's about And it's, again, it's built on students and the vision that we want for public education. It's built on students. Depending on amount of students, you need a principal. Depending on the amount of schools, you need x amount of superintendents. It depends you Do you want a superintendent that is an instructional leader? Do you want a principal that is an instructional leader? Do you want a superintendent that is just operation? There's a lot of questions to be asked about that. I think it's a convenient way we're saying stay under the 4,000, please forgive me, but stay under the 4,000, that is more realistic. You have seen not just statements, studies like Brigadis and Chris Baker, in Virginia, that had given you Oh, Bruce Baker? Yes, Bruce Baker. It was a while ago, but had given me and it was under $4,000 that was more realistic for Vermont. So stay under $4,000 and now add the extra layer. What are you gonna invest for facility? What are you gonna invest for transition? What is the timeline? How is this redistricting going to affect the future foundation formula? How are we gonna address the cost drivers? Is not an eitheror. All of it has to be tied together.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. No. I get all

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: of Okay.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I I just wonder why we're putting so much stock in the number of students as opposed to the number of principals and the superintendent.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Because the principals serve the students. Right? Principal, the person does serve the Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: And the superintendent serves principals.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: And the student. Everybody in our facilities like They

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: were diluting everybody. That that's my point. I'm just wondering why we're always putting so much stock in the number of students versus the number of principals The superintendent would have authority or responsibility for for leading. So so for example, Burlington, you guys got some pretty big school base. You know, but you may, you, let's just say, I don't know what, a thousand students at one of your big schools, that's one school, one principal, according to one superintendent as opposed to, it's not about a thousand kids or fifth a 500 kids reporting into a superintendent. You have the principal right there in the middle. I'm just kinda curious why the whole conversation's getting stuck on a number of students. Because in my world, we we have organization charts. We try to not oversaturate a particular leader or a particular responsibility. And I'm I it's kind of an apples and oranges thing. The superintendents aren't responsible. You know, the the students don't report directly to the superintendent. They report into you know, they they're they're they're represented by the principal. That's the whole layer of kind of chain of command.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Are you asking about ratios? I'm sorry.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: What? I'm asking about why we're stuck on the number of students reporting into a superintendent, to a new district, which is a superintendent.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I think it's because we're trying to serve the students in Vermont, right? Of course we are.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: We all are. No, it's debating back. So. It's all about students. We're not doing this with students and we should be doing this at all. We all understand that.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I think

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: another way to maybe try to get at what I think is getting at is in a superintendent, the superintendent's relationship is, in terms of education, primarily with the principals. And is it really, know, the other way to maybe ask that question would be can a superintendent deal just as well with eight or nine principals as a superintendent could with four? And so isn't that, I think, is maybe one way to think about it is, isn't it?

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I think

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: that What is the I

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: would have to send the back.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: To work at the school. So does it really matter if there's 500 kids or a thousand kids at school when perhaps is the issue the relationship of the superintendent with four, five, six, seven, eight, nine principals?

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I think I would sort of take us back a little bit. We're talking right now about geographical regions, right? We're talking about density across our state and how we are, whether we like it or not, this is how we have been distributed, or if it's long, these are our town boundaries. Then you have the education quality standards, which we are not making up, that also tells us how many principals, how many students per class, you know, I don't have it all present right So, if you want to get into changing that, I'm not prepared to testify on that right now. We are here with the map that was presented, right? So, we are taking into consideration the distances, the density of those areas. When we were highlighting District 14, it was like we heard from actual school board members in that region how hard it would be. We also worry that, depending on, I'm not gonna get into that, we don't want the wrong schools to be the ones closing, the ones that are further removed from public school. There's a lot of things to take into consideration, so I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just saying we're building a system with the realities, the context that we have in Vermont right now. When this map was created, that was not created by us, and you guys have created other maps, it's not It's boring,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: it's okay. Right. It's boring.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Yeah, it's about, the 4,000 students feels manageable. The State Board of Education has spent some time saying what a small by design school is, so you have already put limits on that. I think we just started class this little close to schools, and it didn't run well. I know that a lot of people have heard about that, and we were trying to bring our five communities into three multi town schools that are not that far away, but when we were moving into those three multi town schools, we still need three principals in that school. We would still have one for a tenant. If Montpelier and Washington Center came together, would have one for a tenant that probably would have end up with an assistant, I don't know, business administrator. Don't know exactly how, you have to give the flexibility to the people in the ground to develop what they need. We can't tell them this is your region, you're just gonna have five principles. It's just do you deliver education? And that is part of, again, the education policy standards that the AOE and the state board develop are pretty comprehensive. I don't have them right. I would be lying if I told you that I remember exactly. Well, why don't

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you two stay there? Okay. And we'll listen to Jeff, if you have something to add, and then we can we can figure that.

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Well, thank you. Interesting conversation, Flor and Sue. I'm behind you. I'm watching you the whole way.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We got your back.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Okay. Thank you. So

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person. I'm I think I'm fully recovered, but not quite all the way, I guess, maybe, but from a some kinda nasty bug. So I out of respect for everybody's health, I decided better to stay at home. So first off, thank you for inviting us to to offer some preliminary thoughts about the proposal that was recently released by the chair of the House Education Committee. Like you, like all of us, we're still learning about the proposal. And as we know, the details do matter. And I think there were some more details released today. I have not reviewed those, so I'll I'll I won't be able to answer any questions about that. I've I've heard rumors. We appreciate the proposal the chair offered. The map is much more in line with Vermont's community scale and connectivity, and that alone may be the right approach. A little bit to the conversation you're just having with Senator Weeks. In Vermont's most recent three town elections concerning the closing of a community school in Danville, Callis, and Worcester, Vermonters overwhelmingly voted to keep their local community schools open. Local schools are a treasured part of the fabric of our communities, and the proposed map does not create districts that are so large as to make Vermonters detached from their schools. And likewise, local control is a hallmark of good governance, and the proposal, including the map, appears to maintain the nexus between community schools, the the community school, and the citizens of that community. And maybe that's at the heart of what I think you were discussing. I think the the principle is access to policymakers, that people want to feel access to a policymaker. So that's size and scope and scale, I think, are the issue. We remain supportive of the approach proposed by the Act 73 school district school district redistricting task force. That's a mouthful. They call for a strategic voluntary mergers, building, out regional comprehensive high schools, CSOs and BOCES, and utilizing school construction incentives. With the second oldest school facility stock in the country, merging school districts necessarily must include aid for new or remodeled facilities. If there is no if there is no state aid as there was before 2008, new school governance structures will be faced with an immediate crisis that will undermine their success, if not doom the new governance model to complete failure. We support a statewide school construction plan to fund and advise school communities as they navigate any transformation process. Lastly, in part and parcel to any school construction program is the need for a reasonable timeline for merging school districts to address complex issues while working to develop genuine community buy in for the new school system. In reviewing the proposed conversation starter from Chair Conlon, there are several points of deserving of comment. The contract provision makes a lot of sense. It seems to present a logical way to ensure that there is a comprehensive written document encapsulating the relationship between taxpayer dollars and the schools that educate Vermont's children. We support this provision. As to designation, we understand the need for and the value of the four historic academies. And as such, we think it is correct to leave to the locally elected school boards to make the designation decision based upon state guidance. As for the contractual requirements found at section two b one, spelling out what any public school board must have in any contract with an approved independent school, it seems as if more testimony is needed. We have heard of issues surrounding students who arrive at public schools with little to no notice and without records from their previous school, which causes academic concerns. These sections should be fully examined to determine the scope of the issues the subsection is attempting to address. But at a minimum, publicly funded students must be enrolled so that they can receive the education they deserve and are constitutionally entitled to receive. Thank you for giving me some time today, and I'm happy to answer questions. And obviously, as more is known from the house proposal and conversation starter, we'd be happily invited back in. Thank you.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Further questions for any of the three witnesses?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yep.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I mean, I wasn't here at the beginning of your testimony, but I think what's what's really worth underscoring as we have this for a second guidance handout is that a good final bill coming out of the legislative process this year would address all of these things. Like, a math can't do it. A foundation formula can't do it. A new tax proposal can't do it, a CTE proposal can't do it alone. But even if these move in a disjointed fashion, I think there is a commitment from many folks that all of these things will have been touched and addressed in a final bill or we won't have done our job. That's what I would say about the chair, but do think it's hard to have a conversation just about a map, not what the map does and why and what that means for kids. But I appreciate you just bringing us back to It is a comprehensive system and we frankly just don't ask municipal government to just merge all the time and sort of justify their existence. So, you know, we are managing the well-being of lives of a lot of little people, lots of little people. And, you know, that has parameters that are geographic, that are based on the number of students, that are based on the number of school buildings. There's all kinds of parameters that people look at all over the country that would take an education doctorate degree to sort of spell out what makes sense, but it's going to look different in every part of the state.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I will add, I just found it in educationvermont.gov, it got staffing, you know, schools with 10 or more full time equivalent teachers showing full time licensed principal. We were at 10 full time, you know, I'm not gonna, but there is already the guidance on that.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Can you say that again? How many principals for

[Unidentified Committee Member]: For every 10 full time teachers, we shall employ a full time licensed principal. So

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: For every 10 teachers we have a principal?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No. No. With 10 or more full time positions of teachers. You need a full time.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Oh, so if there was nine, they could get away with a hard time. And if you you need to

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: disclose with fewer than 10 full time equivalent, you shall employ a license for a proper basis.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So yeah okay so I get that.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So that's a that's a lower level right?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: The upper level is you have a high school whether it's you know 200 or 2,000 it's still one principal.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: It's one school, right? I think

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: it's a much more complicated question than just- Wait, I get it. The average school district in the country has five school buildings. So they usually aren't trying to manage multiple high schools because that's a logistical challenge. They're not trying to transport kids across 650 square miles. Like, I'm not it they're all parameters, but, like,

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: No. I'm sure

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: we're not very And and then and then

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: One principal, one school?

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: 200 what?

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: We have 288 schools. And we have 288 principals. Is that correct? Or or we might

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: like, yeah, this example of having only five children's Correct?

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: And the bigger the school, the more likely to have assistant principals. The bigger the municipality, you're becoming more permanent heads.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: The principal responsibility Principals work for principals. Principals work for superintendents.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Yeah, absolutely. But principals are the instructional leaders of their for example, if you're talking about high schools, and they also supervise those positions, so they then have to divide it into maybe an assistant principal so they they do that. So you're not necessarily and staff is really what brings it back.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Not breaking down the schools. Yeah. We're staying above the principal's level. That's the whole point. That's the only point I'm trying to make. That's where the the the principal reports their superintendent. You know, that's that's the hierarchy. It's not the assistant principal reporting to superintendents. It's assistant principals will report to the principal. Sure.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Complicated. Just a where I'm I'm trying to fully understand. This is not a perceived question, you know. What is the point that you're trying to make? Because I I don't understand.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Well, wait. Everybody's talking about the number of students in the district. Yes. My point is, we should be considering the number of principles that a superintendent would have authority over, responsibility over, not the number of students. It's a very different calculus. That's all. It's the only point I'm trying to make. You get wrapped around a number of suits.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay? I mean, how does, so when we're talking about the foundation formula tying into all of this, how does the number of principles have nearly as dramatic an impact compared to We're

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: not altering the number of principals. This whole indexing. We're we're altering the number of superintendents potentially. This that's the whole

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: the whole effort. You could

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: give a superintendent control over principal, yeah, I get exactly where you're coming from. Yeah, so you go up to Burlington, Essex and that, you could probably have, you could have two principals under one superintendent, or if we'd say, for arbitrary numbers, five. Five principals under a superintendent. It doesn't matter that this superintendent has 5,000 students under him because he's only dealing with five principals. You step down into a smaller area, he's still dealing with five principals.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay, so the point is, why or why not have more principles under the umbrella of one super. Is that?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: No. Not not trying to change that. I'm not trying to focus focusing on we're all spinning around the number of students per superintendent district. The district is a superintendent. Okay? You know, is it what's more important? The number of students, the number of principals that you know, which is the most important fact, the number of students or the number of principles that are that are superintendent would represent and and all I'm saying is

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Like, as

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: a- As a leadership responsible.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Right. I get exactly where it's come from now. We've always been looking at how many students.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Think about who-

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: But you talked to, like, up in the North, Northern region where she said, How many school board meetings does she go to?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: It would be something. Yeah. Oh my god,

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: we know. Crazy. So she only had five principals, so we were under her 10. That cuts, that just cut down her having to go to 47 school board meetings.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: It is not about the principals, it's about the number of school boards that she has. That's why, or whoever you're going to Right,

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: if they only have five or 10 principals, then it cuts their break

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: If out they just had one board, so if they had a supervisory district instead of supervisory union,

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: had five boards. Yeah.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: That's the number of meetings

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: that they're happy. So,

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: that's an even different question. Yeah.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I don't know that it's necessarily that we're trying to consider what's more or less important but I think that I think the leadership dynamics and the roles between a superintendent and principals is its own complicated bucket of dynamics and then, on the other hand, you have the number of students in the different schools compared

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: the number of teachers, the number of principals, which is its own. Good. Dynamic. So, I I don't know. They're both important but I don't know that there's one that's more important than the other. I think they both have to get looked at and they're all through through their separate lenses.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't know if you remember, I asked Jay Ramsey from the Principals Association, like, how do the principals feel as probably the most important link in all of it, as the building leaders, do you think we need this many superintendents? And they've been pretty emphatic that they don't think we need this many superintendents. You know, so I don't know if that answers your question. Like they've already been part of

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: the I think they already know the answer to the question.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: But I agree with you that principals, we're not affecting the principals. And we're not affecting the students in this first wave of recognizing where we're trying to find efficiencies for improved education system.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So what then is what you're saying that, I mean I think that's aligned with what is being said that we have to be clear about what these masks would accomplish, and they might only accomplish back end administrative consolidation or cut the number

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: of superheroes. I'm gonna react you to this, where you have, every, you and everybody before you and probably, you know, for several days afterwards, it's all about the number of students. The minimum number, the maximum number of students. I think that's the wrong metric. I really do. I think it's about the number of principles. How much, there's all kinds of studies, leadership studies about how many subordinate units can a single leader effectively manage. That's the real question here. It's not about the number of students which is the next order below that. That's my point. Leave it

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: there. Guess I was just trying to get clarity in this. Are we trying to do the maps around how many principals we have in the state?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I think we ought to consider it. That's really the point. How many schools and how many principals? That's a metric that I think we should be trying to get our head around. Per superintendent. What's manageable and what's not manageable? So, it's not about the number of students. There's a corollary in some areas of the state where that's we could really draw, you know, that that that will just naturally come out to be like, you know, you know, equivalent students. But it's really about the number of facilities and those associated principles that the superintendent should be dealing with. What's the saturation point for that? Not how many students. This is different in the Northern Kingdom than it is in Burlington.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: And it's all I mean, like, New York City is one school district. I'm sure they have, like, some grandpa who lost superintendent, and then they have, like, 18 other superintendents under that person, you know? Like, bureaucracy just has a scale at which it's either effective or it's not anymore.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: And that's what we're trying to do is bring efficiency to it and bring efficiency to it should save us

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: And that is the only conversation we ever had about school district lies was that you get dis efficiencies or dis economies of scale or whatever it's called at a certain point, which is absolutely true if you have trying to cover six fifty square miles.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, this is actually an interesting discussion, Jessica. Well, actually, because picking up on Cedric's appointment, you could have a superintendent with five or let's say six principals, six principals. It would be, oh maybe let me ask you this a question, would it be any harder or easier for that superintendent to manage those six principals in those six schools if each of them had a thousand kids or each of them had 500? So the question, yeah, that's the question. Is it really the number of students or is it actually the number of management units? And think it's, I'd say that's

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: And that's because Vermont is unique on that.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. And you respect that uniqueness. Yeah. Small schools versus big schools, all based on geography. Right. Yeah. It's just just all I'm asking is just think about that.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Why did that come out last year?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It's funny.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's funny. It's not. Not. It's We received the.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Yeah. No. I thank you for saying that because I'd like to say on the record, I I didn't handle the sound.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Looks like a jiggle.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: That's what I like. That's I like. What we guessed.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Missus

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Hinsburg is still wrong. I would not do that for the record. But, yeah, I for I made the map on the right that is an overlay of the state's transportation pattern, not full transportation patterns, just with the CTEs drawn on it

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: for information.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Pick that up and work it into this one.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: And it just got handed out, and then I don't know how that happened.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. And it's just for Well, perhaps whoever did this, maybe we should figure out who it is and see if they've got something to tell us.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Well it's It's written a stone VTAP instead of South Burlington so I guess it's not Tom Shinken. Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. We don't occur.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Thank