Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: At set up education committee on February 13. Today, we're picking up at S-two 32, and actually, I guess maybe almost a final walk through it and see if we're we didn't warn a boat, so whether we do it today or

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: just warn it for tomorrow, like a different ship.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We've got a couple of pages, right?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Is correct. Should I come up? No.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We do have thoughtful vote for Okay. Good. Oh, yes, we do have a thoughtful vote. Move to jump up.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Well, good afternoon, Tucker Anderson. What a time to be alive with a possible vote. I have in front of you S-two 32, and additionally, I had just sent to Daphne, and it might be posted on the committee information page, a proposed amendment. I arrange it as individual instances of amendments so that the committee can take a look at what's being proposed directly, but if you prefer a strike all, I can always reformat it. Oh, I see.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I see. You have it? Okay. Well, let's go through it first. Okay. So I have it

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: right here. Here are the changes. Draft 1.1, committee's amendment to S. Two thirty two. First, in section four, sixteen BSA, forty fourteen. To reorient you, this is early education grants. Now that the language in the bill is introduced is being changed, this is an addition. So the addition here, and this came from recommendations from the Department of Libraries, is to add a clause clarifying that the grant funds that can be used for voluntary early education program training can also include the training of public library staff. So you have that list there in subsection A that the funds can be used for training of parents and staff, and this extends that to public library staff.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: If my goodness is true,

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Two three two is a loss in your time. An issue of law. Just for example, libraries that Mhmm. Was section two. That's all been removed. Is this language that is this the entirety, 1.1, the entirety of the changes?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: It is not. These are just in the sections. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm trying to catch up. Yeah. So So

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: arrange these as individual instances of amendments so you can see just the provisions that are changing. Okay, the second thing that is changing from the bill is introduced. Striking out section five in its entirety, not because there are dramatic changes within here, but because it's a rather rather large section where there were individual granular changes being made, and it would be quite difficult to read in the sentence formatting. So, in section five, I will point you to page two in Subdivision 4. There is some discussion around changing injunctions related to the department's duties from court to hand. The one place where I can show you that has changed is in Subdivision 4, the underlying language. The collection, that's the general library collection attempted by the department, may be composed of digital and physical materials. So the work and change happened here because this is discretionary. The preceding conjunctions were left in the floors because they are mandatory. Okay. At the end of that subdivision, the department recommended some cleanup to references to service by mail or book wagon. That reference is and in its place, there is new language that states that they can provide these services through interlibrary loan, and shall encourage the sharing of library materials between libraries in Vermont and nationally through interlibrary loan. No more book value.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No, were requiring a link to the Yeah. They exist, they fit within that Which language of

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: agency? Department of Congress. Specifically, it was in a list of recommendations submitted by the State Library. Alright. Subdivision five, language of stroke related to a duty for the department to provide service and consultation to all libraries and state at the regional as well as the state level. So this strikes that requirement that they provide the service at both the political subdivision level and the state level as a mandatory fee, and I know that there's background in the memo recommendations that's submitted to the committee. I don't have

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: any of the policy information points.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: We're moving on to page three, the third instance of amendment. A little bit of background here. This strikes out section six in its entirety and replaces it with a completely different section of law. So we'll start with what is being removed from the bill. Section six in the bill is introduced, applied a brand new duty to the department to publish guidance documents for libraries about where they can find grants, grant information, and bonding information at the municipal level. Based on the recommendations from the department, that has been removed, and there is an explanation for that in what the department submitted. And the new section says addresses the issue that I flagged at the end of my walkthrough the last time that I was in, which is that there were some underlying issues with the statutes related to public libraries and how their boards of trustees are appointed, specifically, some potential conflict between those public libraries that are incorporated, aka privately established, but municipally supported. There were some municipalities that were interpreting this language here in subsection before you to allow the select boards, the town level, city level, to appoint the trustees of privately incorporated but municipally supported libraries. To address this concern, new language has been added to the end of this subsection to constrain the interpretation of existing law. It states that the subsection shall not be construed to apply to public libraries that are privately established, chartered, or incorporated pursuant to subchapter two of this chapter. A little bit of explanation about that list at the end, and how wild some of the world of libraries can get, particularly the incorporation of libraries. When we are talking about incorporated libraries, there are three general buckets that we can be discussing. The first is that you have a trust library. This is in a state, someone passes away and leaves a tremendous amount of money in trust to establish a library that is open to the public. The trust funds are potentially overseen by either private trustees or potentially, if it's left to a town, the trustees oppose funds at the local level. It is incorporated as a trust and exists separate from municipal government, but potentially, the town, out of its own discretion, contributes some sort of annual appropriation to the existence of the library. You could also have a corporation formed as five zero one(three), just as an example, nonprofit corporation, incorporated in Vermont to create a library. You could also have, under subchapter two of the chapter that this section sits in, a library that is incorporated under general procedures in that subchapter. You could also have libraries that were chartered by the general assembly, and that has happened in the past, and is a matter of research that I have not taken up yet, but as you know, there were all sorts of corporations that were formed by legislative banks. Now all of these, in the definition of public library, are kind of swept in, that is a legal issue that probably needs to be tackled in the future. But for the time being, the short term solution here is to ensure that this subsection is constructed in a way where all of those, we'll call them privately established libraries, won't have their governing boards taken over by a municipal corporation just because $1 was appropriated in the budget approved by the members to that library.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes. So I think in most kind of library trustees are alike, is that?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: They can be, yes. So municipal libraries, especially when they're formed, the municipality can, through the voters, vote to have an elected Board of Trustees for that library. It

[Unidentified Committee Member]: was kind of they're pretty territories. So I remember being on the select board and telling the board of trustees they're gonna do something they didn't want to do. So I tried both of those. Who's gonna get angry about?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: All sorts of people. Sure. So one of the things that I'll definitely point out about why this might have become a pressure point over the last year is that there was some cleanup around the jurisdictional power of public library trustees at the municipal level. So you saw some cleanup in the statutes that designated more of the authority to the trustees to ensure that there was some separation between the legislative body at the local level and the trustees that are in charge of the municipal libraries. So that may be why some of this consternation has kicked out just over the last year. Great.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think it would be helpful to see what people think to see this as a strike all and walk through the entire thing again and make sure we have this part. And I missed that memo on the which Tucker should worry if he had it though, right? Still on today's? It is posted on

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: the committee information age. Okay. I believe the last

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: time you took it. Okay. Yeah, that would find me. So, had to read that to make sure I understand. So, what are people thinking? Does that make sense? We get the one strike ball, walk through it again. We point out the changes, food has to go, repeat the bemo in the meantime, starting with me. Yeah. So when I I think we could do this relatively quickly. It could ready as as early as we actually have some time tomorrow, don't we? Do you have any time tomorrow afternoon?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: I would have to look at my calendar. Daphne can probably pull up the calendar if that's what I am. Right. Working on it now.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So it's just a deal of it

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: and that's the error. I know that I have no time in the morning, because that's not

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: an issue. It's in any other stuff. It's different.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Like, your tentative been up somewhere tomorrow from one to four and then maybe three after 02:30. I am not in the tentative committee zone, so you can book me during. Okay, great. I'm a bad work attorney. So what did you want us to read?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The memo that took reference that I think you noted in the past, I realized was there, at least I didn't. I don't see it. From when? When was that posted? The original date that

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: I have is January 21. At least that's the date on the testimony. It's the date I just introduced. You read first that to this. I can look for it. Okay,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: let's go for for today. Yeah, so, okay, so Daphne will find it and repost it for today. So we all need to read it this afternoon or tonight, and we'll have a new strike law We'll get our bill through and I think does anybody have any issues to thinking about anything that we For the library? Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I I need to go back and review the request for the problem. Some report after school concern. Otherwise Yeah. I don't have a question.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I just wanna oh, you mean that this was the issue about adding seeing specifically the blood groups, but they had some portion thereof? Yeah. Some testimony about that. We just need to go back to you. Yes. Yeah. Should do we We have a little time still on the agenda. Can you actually, could you step up for a minute? Yeah. And remind us about that issue, Why it makes sense to specifically say something. So, the record. Sure. Catherine Del Nio, I'm the

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: state librarian and the commissioner of the Department of Libraries. The department, in the testimony that we provided when we initially came before you the day that Senator Hardy introduced the bill, the department shared its perspective of the need in public libraries for additional support around summer programming and after school programming and, programming in the breaks from school. So, really, the department did not propose this bill, I want to be clear. We didn't bring it as a policy move. So, really, I can share is to speak to the need that we have heard from public libraries in the state.

[Catherine Delneo, State Librarian & Commissioner of the Department of Libraries]: And I believe the last time that we were together and you asked me some questions about it, I shared that currently almost every public library in the state provides a summer reading program of some type. We have, at the department, we have been granting funds since at least 2000. Those funds have grown from 100 back in February per library that is eligible, meaning that they meet the state requirements as far as the risk assessment and that they have a unique identifying number and things of that nature. So, we follow bulletin five, we offer the grant opportunity, we're in the midst of one right now, and the total amount that they can obtain through the department is $350 through a noncompetitive grant process. So, we typically see about 150, 155 of the public libraries in the state apply for and receive that money. They use it to do individual events at the library that encourage kids to come in, encourage kids to keep reading. That's in the context of the broader summer reading program that each library is running, which is usually like a four to six week program while school is out. You may remember it from your kids going to the library, or you go into the library yourself, there's a game board, the kids move through, they read books, or they log their minutes, and then they get prizes throughout the summer or participate in raffle programs. Really, there's a broader program that the state is supporting and has been supporting, department's been doing this for years, to encourage literacy retention and literacy gains over the summer versus kids kind of sliding backward with their literacy attainment. So that is, I believe, the recognition of the fact that those resources are limited from the state. That is, I can't speak to the sponsors, but I think that is why the language is in the bill.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Senator Weeks, thank you. So you refreshed my memory, think it was last Thursday or Friday, we had a AOE briefing from afterschools program director, some titles about that. And there were three issues. One, libraries were already included. Two, libraries were not applying because, three, the application process was ten to twenty hours regardless of the scale of grant or funding requested. That was kind of the rub, and that's where we left it. I'm not sure you testified, I don't think you testified after that, but that's kind of like, it just, I'm not sure we were really solving the real problem. The real problem seemed to be the application process, the length of the application. So are we really correcting the anomaly? That's the question. Okay.

[Catherine Delneo, State Librarian & Commissioner of the Department of Libraries]: I was learning along with you from colleagues in the agency of education that day and I'm still gathering information and learning about the process. And I'm not sure I can answer the question for you. I think that it's a question that really may come down to, are public libraries, as they're construed by statute, a piece of the educational system, are they something worth supporting with those particular dollars? Or do you think that's something to address in a different way at a different time?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, I will say that I think everybody thinks it's worth it, and it should be. I think we've all agreed about that. The question we had was initially was proportionality whether and then this other issue that emerged will begin to realize the problems, the application process and that there's no one can talk about the possibility of an application late that would take a lot less time to just be simpler and less monitoring afterwards with the smaller amounts like you see nonprofit gives out grants all the time

[Unidentified Committee Member]: so that's that should, yes. So just, so what I'm hearing is that every library state, the consensus is this okay?

[Catherine Delneo, State Librarian & Commissioner of the Department of Libraries]: I think that it may be more relevant for you to hear from Hal Pale, who represents the Vermont Library Association and the department. I can speak to the need, but I don't want to speak to, I don't want to advocate for this because I am not confident that there's no way through this administratively in partnership with AOD, but I think maybe there's another person who may have a different perspective that is more representative of the library community.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, why don't we do that for a minute? Stay here. Well, my question, because

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: you are an advocate, what I understand is like, we'd like a little piece of that pie for to do what we want with rather than having to worry about working it, because we said, well, your department could actually apply for that loan, or not loan, sorry, grant, get the grant and then disperse it the way you see fit, and that just adds more to the bureaucracy, I guess, that I

[Catherine Delneo, State Librarian & Commissioner of the Department of Libraries]: think it should be possible in the sphere of what is possible in the world to have inter agency cooperation in this way. I do not see, when I look at the grant application myself, which I did earlier this year when we were faced with lack of funding from a special fund that funds these grant programs, $50,000 from the Smiths Fund. I did not see that we could apply directly to do the exact program that we are doing now. I think that there are definitely ways for public libraries to apply for this funding to stand up after school programs, similar to after school programs at the Boys and Girls Clubs or things like that, but the specific activity, there would need to be a lot of, there would need to be something different perhaps, but I wanna be very careful about that because I don't administer those funds, and I know that my colleagues at AOE have done a really good job of developing what they are implementing and that program that is out there is a value. I think what is challenging sometimes is, to me, there's a department of libraries that we are charged with supporting libraries and making public libraries the best that they can be. There may not be a Department of After School or Robotics or these other programs. I see libraries as sort of a different type of creature than all of the other possible after school grounds. So one more question that that that come up.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Just curious. So $350 per summer or what have you per library, do you think that was kind of meant to be, you know, to to remove the necessitations to have you guys administer after school funds for all of the libraries? So they just set this base amount and shotgunned it out so the bureaucracy was reduced?

[Catherine Delneo, State Librarian & Commissioner of the Department of Libraries]: I it's hard to speak to how that was set up because it's been in place now for at least twenty six years. I think on our end, what we tend to do and I do wanna say I don't want to be adding a administrative burden for anyone else. And in a way, think perhaps the libraries, whoever, Senator Hardy and sponsors of the bill may have known that, that there's this administrative challenge. Again, you'd have to talk to the sponsors of the bill to understand that, but what we do is when we have these special funds, we set up a simple application that still meets the state requirements and we grant them out with the type of reporting that's appropriate to that level of funding and to those smaller amounts. I don't think that the Department of Library would like half of the funding. I feel silly saying that, but the amount of funding that would To

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

[Catherine Delneo, State Librarian & Commissioner of the Department of Libraries]: think that there may be different ways to have the same results. I think my role is really to share with you what the community is telling us, which is that the $350 is, it's hard to keep growing the program with that limited funding and that their local funds for programming are quite small. So that's really where they're coming from. If we, anybody listening, any major donors out there watching this hearing, if somebody were to come forward with funding for this from any source, not new taxes, but from any source, we would try to create a simple application that meets the requirements and the reporting tools so we know it's being used in the way that we wish to support literacy and educational retention over the summer months. That's the whole point of summer reading. We know that libraries can use it. They might be able to use different amounts. A really small library might say, you know what, we're gonna hold with three fifty, and a big library like Burlington might say, actually, we could really use 2,000 So it would, I wouldn't wanna even say how we would develop. We haven't gotten that far in our minds because this is something that, it's really, we weren't part of the original conversation and I want to be careful in just giving you all the space to consider the impacts of it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thanks, let's hear from Cal.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: you. I'm Cal Hale here on behalf of the Vermont Library Association. We are I I think the the important point from the testimony we heard from the AOE last week was that libraries are not having access to these funds right now in practice. And Senator Weeks mentioned the issue of the application being ten to twenty hours. That application, from my understanding, is it's under federal standards for sending out money, and that's schools and some large nonprofits that are providing these programs are well set to do that. But for libraries, talking about cannabis money, it's the state money, for libraries to have access to this, going by the state standards for grant applications, which is what the department is doing with their current after school funding, is really, I think, the only way that this would be accessible for most libraries. Vermont's libraries are a diverse group with a lot of different levels of resources, but for the most part, being able to apply for grants in the way that they already are is what will make this successful.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So are you saying that under the federal regs would prohibit the application as being simpler than it is?

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: I believe that that is why the application for the AOE is so complex, because they're going by the federal regulations, and that's because many of the grants that the AOE is giving out are federal money, so it makes sense that that's the way their system is set up, but this is a grant of state money that should not need to follow those requirements.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Which is a greater than this?

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: This. Yeah, okay. Yeah, the cannabis sales Okay. Tax or

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, yeah, so, okay. So, the language as is

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: I think that the critically important part of the language as is begins on line 20 of page three, that a reasonable portion of funding shall be allocated to the Department of Libraries to support that program and grants for these activities at libraries. So if that money could go to the department, even to a small portion of the cannabis funds, that would make it accessible for And

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: then that $3.50 could fill up to some number, different dollar number. Right. Okay. All the boats get floated at the same time,

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: that concept as opposed to the library that goes out of the way to create a cinder program that really needs the power.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Two ways to They prevent could still comply. They wouldn't be permitted to comply. And I have this probably,

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: but have they got a dollar amount that you were looking for out of, or have you done any calculations to come up with saying, Hey, out of that cannabis money we'd want, know, amending dollars?

[Catherine Delneo, State Librarian & Commissioner of the Department of Libraries]: I have not got a number that, I think from the department's perspective, we're trying to share information about what is going on already in libraries and that the dollar amount, if you felt it was something or the percentage, if you felt it was something you wanted to support, we could provide that information at your request. Don't want to get ahead of ourselves. The program currently is $50,000 so if that gives you some context.

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: Can I share our Just position on to propose a number, if 5% of those funds went into this funding stream to the Department of Libraries to go out to libraries? That would only, only 5% of that money could really make a big impact in programming that's supporting early literacy, And I think that's a particular strength of summer programming through libraries, is that it provides this wraparound in literacy over the summer.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: At 5% at the current rate, how much would that be? 4,400,000.0 for

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the drink, for the produce. Four,

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: the total? 4, yeah. Right, so.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The winter after school programs.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: So if he said 5,000,000, then 5% of five. Correct? Yeah. So

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you had a bunch of well, that's what I

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: want to figure out. Maybe tell them that because I was just gonna 200. It's gonna sound like it sound like you're a state bureaucrat already. You know, 5% of what, you know, what is it now? What's gonna use for? I mean, anyway, 5% of 400 4.9.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Basically that would be two fifty. I think that 5,000,000 is all the time. I

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: think, yeah, it may be

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It was 4,400,000 last year.

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: Last year, and I think we heard testimony that that number is going up. And that 5% isn't, you know, we're not holding hard and fast to that number, but I think it was a starting point to offer.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: But it gives us a dollar.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: right. 2 and 25,000. So would

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: be 50,000 to zero and four. Yes. So,

[Catherine Delneo, State Librarian & Commissioner of the Department of Libraries]: you know, I had to cut my punching short last time by this beginning. I had wanted to know what kind of entities the dollars are going to right now that do after school programs because we heard a little bit from AOE that parks and rec and other municipal entities are on the map. They get some money.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: It's

[Catherine Delneo, State Librarian & Commissioner of the Department of Libraries]: probably disproportionately less than what they offer and they and they have other sources, but I think the challenge isn't, you know, and and you can speak to this if you'd like. Some libraries are municipal, some libraries are nonprofits, etcetera. So, you know, maybe they deserve to be their own category, but I wouldn't want to forget a lot of the other municipal departments that do a lot of after school for kids. Like, I would say visibly the bulk of after school not happening on a school campus that I've seen.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. So the testimony was in part that most so many of our waterworks are really tiny. Mhmm. And they don't have the capacity to have information. And so just raising the piss somewhat and putting them into the trying to get them into the game. And I don't know what the, and actually the reason we had them here was that answer, to get to the you're talking about, like why would somebody be above somebody else?

[Catherine Delneo, State Librarian & Commissioner of the Department of Libraries]: Right.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So may be that the way the language reads, it at least says they would give some portion thereof to you to then distribute out to the libraries, right?

[Catherine Delneo, State Librarian & Commissioner of the Department of Libraries]: In the draft bill? Yeah,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: yeah. So wouldn't have to necessarily be uproar, but the reality is it

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: may not change anything because they would consider it as a reasonable portion of funding was already being allocated and nothing changes. The real problem seems to be the allocation.

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: Well, I think, Senator Weeks, that right now there's no funding being allocated to the department from the cannabis, the cannabis sales tax revenue. So the bill would at least require that some portion of that be allocated to the department.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And then it goes after a very simple grant process for that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right. So yes. So I remember two years ago we had, Dave Kesha came to talk about where the money goes and it could not, it had to go to already nonprofit after school programs in a grant. I if I remember correctly. And it's filed the LAH wanted that money to go through them, and that was that was a closing bill that was put in there by the legislature. And you will if it does, then act 60 goes away if you said, remember? It a quite compelling testimony that what we what we wanted to do with money couldn't be done. I had go directly to the nonprofit. I think that's why you get an organization like the boys and girls clubs

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Are really taking advantage of that because they're expanding and they're given a good service. But I think they have to apply to the grants often.

[Catherine Delneo, State Librarian & Commissioner of the Department of Libraries]: Take your time.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Any other questions? Any other information we need before we have our redrafts tomorrow? So You mean a Yeah.

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: A refresher on the voice of pill piece. I remember that being contentious, and I want to get the language forget in front of us to line up if that's

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I I remember there

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: were strongly deferring opinions on whether or not it actually was going to do the thing that people thought it could do.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. You know, that's opening up, that's a whole another, this is just a little kind of language saying that somebody goes to.

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: Right, but I'm, my, my understand, maybe I was misunderstanding, but if the, if what's being inferred is that this poison pill would be, would activate or whatever you you wanna say as a result of this change, then I think

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we should clarify if it would or wouldn't. Yeah. Not all public.

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: If that's what

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No. I don't I I'm not I'm just talking in general about the funding from the Canvas tax going to after school programs, and it amounted to that couldn't give the funding to the schools to to do the after school programs. It had to go to nonprofits. This is only a small, very small portion of it. I don't know if JFO would have Doctor.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Hasid something to The quick clarification here is that I believe what Senator Weeks is bringing up is that the way that the General Assembly has structured the education property tax and the education funds, there is an automatic repealer built in that if other funding streams are sent in to support education besides what was developed in Act 68, then the entire chapter creating the education property tax and the Ed Fund is repealed. Now there's a lot of complex legal questions surrounding that, whether that would actually happen. I'll also remind you that it's not as a constitution, something that you all put in statute, so you cannot withstand it at any point, but more in-depth conversation for another time with Beth St. James. Is that discussion relevant to what's in front of us? No, because there's no education funding involved in either the underlying statute or in the proposal within S-two 32.

[Cal Hale, Vermont Library Association]: Okay, that clarifies.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Okay, so

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: if I can just begin to explore it, okay. Good, Good, so we'll get a pen and draft. It's strike all the Okay. Thank you. Probably gonna

[Unidentified Committee Member]: do it either tomorrow.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: When we get that set up. Just let's see if we can jump out. We have, we're switching gears now. We have Chelsea Myers here with us on the screen and we're two twenty seven as you all recall, it's the immigration protocols, and we wanted to hear from the superintendent's association, the good ones, that we would be happy to take on this task. So for the record, you are, you're still muted. Yeah, I've got some.

[Chelsea Myers, Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association]: Yeah, trying to find my mute button. Chelsea Myers, the Executive Director of the Vermont Superintendents Association. Thank you for inviting testimony from our association on this pressing issue. At its foundation, this bill is about ensuring that every child can access a public education safely and without fear. For Vermont superintendents, this is not theoretical. It is a daily responsibility, Ensuring that every child feels safe, welcomed, and able to fully participate in school is central to their work. Superintendents across the state take this obligation seriously and have been actively working within their districts to prepare for the evolving landscape. At the same time, we recognize that we can and should do better, and that meaningful improvement requires partnership. The more the state can step in to provide coordinated training, ongoing guidance, vetted resources, and clear leadership, the better position school districts, particularly those with limited administrative capacity will be will be able to meet this essential responsibility. As with everything in Vermont, with 119 school districts, there are 119 different ways of doing things at the local level. Legislation that establishes clear fundamentals while allowing appropriate flexibility for local context is ideal. Between November 2024 and January 2025, many superintendents worked within their districts to develop administrative procedures specific to their local context. VSA collected and shared examples to support this work to facilitate cross district collaboration. We lean heavily on our national organization, AASA, for up to date briefings and trainings, leveraging their broader capacity and resources. We are ready to support implementation should this bill become law, but we cannot do it alone. Further statewide legal guidance and coordination is needed. I would like to begin our suggestions, if that's okay, by clarifying the distinction between school board policy and administrative procedures, so that the remainder of our testimony, poses questions and suggests technical changes is grounded in that framework. School board policies are formally adopted binding broad statements of direction set by the board. Administrative procedures are the specific step by step actions developed by the superintendent to implement those policies. Policies define what is required. Procedures define how that policy is carried out day to day. In general, we hope that the majority of this work can live within administrative procedures aligned with clear training for all employees, especially those who interface directly with building security and entry. Is it okay to move to a section by section review?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Sure. Floor is yours.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Great.

[Chelsea Myers, Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association]: In the section on non public area of the school site, we will need greater clarity regarding this designation. We are willing to work with the committee to help refine this distinction. The Attorney General's office the other day also raised this testimony. For example, when schools are used as voting sites, public libraries, and for community events, what is the responsibility of the school district surrounding this proposed legislation? In the section about the required policy, the law should clearly lay out what must be included in a required model policy. Again, this should focus on the what, not the how. We recommend consultation with the Vermont School Boards Association regarding feedback on the proposed board policy. Both of our associations can be helpful in appropriately distinguishing what belongs in policy versus procedure. In previous legislation, blurred lines between these two have created confusion and delayed implementation. In the distribution of immigration resources, thank you for recognizing that these resources should not be created district by district. Please continue to commit to state level responsibility for creating resources and training materials. The timeline should realistically reflect the time required for the Attorney General's Office to develop and vet these materials. In the section that says, At each school, the superintendent oversees designates an officer to serve as a resource for immigration matters who shall receive from the superintendent updated information and training material on an ongoing basis. Please clarify in that section as well that those resources will be provided by the Attorney General's office and the Agency of Education directly to superintendents who can then distribute them appropriately within their districts. In the section on guardian detainment, the language says a superintendent or designee shall to the greatest extent possible partner with a legal advocacy institution. We asked for a little bit greater specificity here, including statewide coordination and vetting of resources. Guidance should clearly outline which entities are responsible for what, include a timeline of action, and provide administrators with practical direction. Districts located far from legal advocacy organizations would especially benefit from centralized coordination. In the section on immigration authorities on-site, please amend the language to allow for more than one designee. This provides necessary flexibility if neither the superintendent nor a single designee is available at the time of need. As the Attorney General's Office pointed out in their testimony, it is worth considering expanding the conversation of applicability to all law enforcement, not only federal immigration authorities. To conclude, the more clearly the bill spells out state level support, the better implementation will be. The state should provide the necessary resources and coordination to ensure districts can properly carry out this law. Vermont students deserve clarity in well supported schools to ensure their safety and rights. This cannot be unfunded. As other witnesses have noted, managing this work in isolation is very costly and burdensome. Let us ensure this is a coordinated statewide effort. Vermont's students depend on it. I'm happy to take any question. I think the general theme here is that we are in support with of the direction and are hoping that in law we clearly spell out what belongs in board policy and what belongs in administrative procedure. And that is kind of the bulk of our recommendations for this proposed legislation.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Do you have or could you propose some specific language for us?

[Chelsea Myers, Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association]: Sure. I'm happy to. And if you're okay with it, I'll get together with the school board's association as well because I don't that's been their primary responsibility is school board policy and we work primarily on administrative procedures.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Keep in mind the crossover date. So very specific recommendations for language recommendations would be helpful.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Sure.

[Chelsea Myers, Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association]: Happy to.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Well, I just wanna say, Chelsea, were you out on maternity leave? Did you Yes. Did you have a baby now?

[Chelsea Myers, Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association]: I did. Yes.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: A little

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: bit. Okay. So you have a baby. Okay. Congratulations. Thank you. Say congratulations. I would really value seeing this language. There are a lot of community advocates and people on school boards trying to model the savings you get from administrative back end. I think that has real potential and we've seen real numbers unlike in other areas about what savings we could expect. I get concerned, like, you know, everyone's looking probably at their own region for these proposed maps and why

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No, wait, we're different, doing the orgomic. Okay. This is 02/27. This is about the schools being ready to, if they're

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Oh, I guess you just haven't had to super dismiss it in so long. You don't wanna talk No. About

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We're a different

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: point now.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We're a

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: different Well, well like, congratulations on your baby. And I hope we see you.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Plus, you're talking about specific language is that.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Yeah. I hope we get specific language from them on the

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: On risk.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Yeah. On how to move forward with larger education. Because we're, you know, Oh, yeah. Sure. I

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: mean, I think We talked about probably Milton was on his committee when somebody comes to board and makes a suggestion to us, not having schools or telling schools or superintendents what to do and add this and add that, our starting point is no. Because, you know, schools have a hard enough time getting through everything, all the information they already need to, and superintendents already have their hands full but this at least strikes me as one since we know it's going to happen where ice creams knock at the door of the school and having a policy in place really is going to make sense for everybody. For me, it's the exception to the rule. I just looked at this and went, this made sense. We better get this in place because it's going to happen.

[Chelsea Myers, Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association]: Yeah, I think,

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: oops, sorry.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No, that's it. That's all I have.

[Chelsea Myers, Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association]: Yeah, I think really it's just aiding and implementation. Schools are already equipped to like kind of know what belongs in school board policy and what belongs in administrative procedures and the real day to day operations and the trainings that align with procedures just just streamlining some of that what is already in place for what belongs in policy and procedure I think would really help with implementation in this specific case. So I'm happy to work with you all on providing some suggestion suggestions for changes. Okay. With maintaining the integrity of what is currently written.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, yeah, the goal here obviously is to make sure that schools and the designees know exactly what they're supposed to do best we when the situation arises. So we'll look for that from you, but we've already had this crossover, okay.

[Chelsea Myers, Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association]: I work fast.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And this will have to go to judiciary.

[Chelsea Myers, Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association]: Okay. You give a deadline, will meet it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: This Friday would be great.

[Chelsea Myers, Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association]: I will do my very best.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. Thanks.

[Chelsea Myers, Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association]: And I know that the School Boards Association would probably be interested in coming if there was time available since it does involve a school board policy, which they're very familiar with timeline, especially like for required model policies. So again, making sure that implementation is as seamless as possible.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. We're actually ahead of schedule. I have a few minutes. Yes, it's okay. I always reluctant to start something early because people are saying to tune in at the time announced. But I think we they look long. We just keep to Ben and have the secretary sunders and Jim Ramsey. Is this Jim Ramsey on suite maybe? Or J. Ramsey, sorry.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: James would be with

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: him first.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I don't know, do you wanna go first?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Uh-huh. Happy to. I think Jay Jay Ramsey is here from the Department of Labor just to who's using it to support the proposal and ask any questions that may be related to But the Department of the data that you requested comes from the Agency of Education.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh, yes.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: So

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you're on.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Okay.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Testing.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Hello. Hello. There we go. Great. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. For the record, my name is Zoe Saunders, and I am the Secretary of Education. The agency was invited to respond to specific data requests that you've had related to career and technical education, So we have provided those files. I also have a brief presentation just to provide some context. This is also a great opportunity for you to identify if there are additional data sources that would be helpful to you in informing policy decisions. So I'm going to share my screen. So for context, this is a map, we'll revisit this map later in the presentation, gives you, each dot represents one of the career and technical education centers across the state. This would be enrollment trends since 2021. Certainly you see that COVID did impact participation rates by that 2021 number. I'm also looking at understanding some of the group college of digit minds between 2023 and 2104. This data represents the CTE concentrators along with those students that are participating in a pre test program in ninth and tenth grade. For those that qualify for CTE concentrators, that is defined by a student completing one hundred and twenty minutes for two semesters or two forty minutes for one semester. The enrollment patterns by program area, know are an area of interest for this committee. We have presented this in a couple of different ways based on our data reporting. The first is to look at this by clusters. These clusters are organized and are part of our reporting with Perkins. So, the four clusters with the highest percentage of CTE student enrollment are within the areas of architecture and construction, transportation, distribution and logistics, health sciences, arts, AV technology, and communications. The four clusters with the lowest percentage of CTE student enrollment statewide are related to the areas of marketing, sales, service, finance, information technology, and education and training. Regarding these clusters, it's important to note that there's a variety of different program offerings within clusters. So, some clusters offer a wide range of programs, others are more limited. We share this with you because of its alignment with Perkins reporting. This is also being revised according to the federal government and our future reporting to more closely map on to the industry needs. There is an appendix in this report that goes into a little bit more detail, but wanted to share this just kind of a general framing.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So there's a lot of, just to be clear, there's a lot of other programs that are sort of in the middle between like those forestry and some of those And

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: we have provided some additional source documentation that actually goes through each individual program and the waitlist on those programs organized by cluster. So, this is just to give you a high level overview of the types of programs. This committee was very interested in looking at waitlists, so the next two slides are drilling down into where we see waitlists. This is organized in two ways. One is looking at the total number of students that are on the waitlist, and the other column is reporting the number of programs that have a waitlist. And so, can certainly see that there's great variability throughout the state. In a moment, I'm gonna show you a map, which kind of gives us a better handle on where there are some capacity needs.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Sorry to interrupt, I'm just curious if a wait list is different from an objection.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Yeah, that's fine. So a waitlist is coded as there's not space available for that student to enroll. And so my understanding is that the waitlist is not a rejection in terms of student not being qualified for the program. So a rejection for the program would be if the student was not eligible or did not have that prerequisite information or prerequisite credentials to complete

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: a program. So a number of kicks we might want to be in something could be higher than this, the numbers would stick it because it would combination, okay?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: However, the legislation that you passed last session on Act 72 does provide some stronger statutory language and requirements for CTE centers to share the directories of student information for the purposes of enrollment, for those students that are interested and qualified for the programs. There may be different qualifying criteria program by program that would actually be something we should address as we think about statewide program quality. So I would take that as a separate kind of area that we would discuss. So, you don't track denials? I did not bring the information today that identifies those students that are interested, but don't pre qualify. I would have to go back with our data team to see how we collect that information if we collect that information or are required to from the school. Is an illustration of where we see the greatest, latest in terms of the state participation. So I think this is really illustrative of the need to have a statewide approach to expanding access to CTE. It's evident that there are certain parts of our state, where their programs are oversubscribed and are in high demand, and other parts of our state where there's lower interest in CTV programs. So this would be part of the work ahead as we really evaluate some of the root cause for the lower participation in certain areas. This is also an area where we can look at those programs that are in high demand, are very much aligned with workforce needs, and provide some incentives around those programs being offered in places across the state that are more accessible.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Is it likely that some of the numbers, some of the institutions shown lower numbers are lower because they're comprehensives?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: So this particularly references the lower numbers for waitlist. It does not indicate necessarily the number of program offerings or the path.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm just wondering if comprehensives would tend to be able to accommodate more.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: If a comprehensive high school where the tech center is co located with the high school offers And kids can

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: go for just, you know, go to college. I think our mechanics may go to French.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: We certainly see with all of the studies we've done over the last three years that proximity to a tech center is largely predictive of whether or not a student will participate. So I would expect that that proximity does play out in terms of the numbers of participation. Part of the challenge that we're trying to solve as we expand. In terms of salary information, there's more detail in the appendix that was provided here on the slide. We provided a high level overview. When you evaluate the mean teacher salaries in Vermont, we are slightly higher than the national average. Interesting to look at how that plays out with our neighboring states. CTE teacher salaries are higher than Maine and New Hampshire, but substantially lower in New York and Massachusetts, so depending on where you're offering, where you're providing CTE and where you're recruiting teachers, it may be more challenging to recruit MRT teachers if you're closer to the New York and Massachusetts border. CTE centers are required to hire directors. Those director salaries are locally determined. There are no salary schedules at the state level, so there's variability in terms of the salaries. Same with the salary for CTE teachers, so while I have reported the average or the mean, sorry, here I did report the mean wage for teachers, there is variability in salaries across the state, and so that you'll be able to see a bit deeper dive. There are some salary assistance programs that are available for qualifying schools based on the number of programs offered and the enrollment, and that's per state of work rule. In terms of system disincentives, this is something that continues to be a primary focus of our conversations, and is the root of what we have tried to overcome as we expand CTE programming and access. The current tuition based model can create a disincentive for schools to send students to CTE centers. You'll often hear this described as creating a competition for funding and resources. It can create difficulty attracting and retaining high quality CTE teachers, particularly if you're looking at different parts of our state, we might be competing with other states, or states that offer significantly higher teacher salaries. We have continually pointed to the teacher pay inequity across the state. That is true in K-twelve, and it's also true within the scope. Economies of scale create challenges in the small settings. Again, this is a common theme that we hear in Kickball. It also resonates in CEE. And alignment issues between CT centers, spending schools, daily schedules, and graduation requirements. They create a number of problems. They present challenges operationally. They present challenges as it relates to consistent program quality. The good news is there's a number of efforts underway to support stronger alignment. Act 73 did include movement toward the statewide calendar. That will be very supportive for those who think about multiple sending schools sending to one tech center. It will also support with districts having the same professional learning days that can be really helpful in creating alignment of evidence based teaching practices. Additionally, Act 73 required movement towards statewide graduation requirements. Currently, statewide graduation requirements are locally determined. We did receive a finding from the US Department of Education during our most recent monitoring visit in 2024 that indicated that our statewide graduation requirements were inequitable and that they promoted uneven rigor across the state and put us out of compliance. The Agency of Education has provided the recommendations for statewide graduation requirements to the State Board of Education. They are reviewing that as part of their committee work. We continue to support them in that effort, including organizing a number of focus groups, including with students and also with additional focus groups with our institutions of higher education, which is their admissions offices, to really evaluate record equity along with continuing work we're doing with industry aligned partners. Yes. So this is an area where we heard a lot of concern from the field in the CTE world the graduation requirements, especially as they relate to the number of classes you might need to take or the hours of a certain subject, don't really align well with CTE at all. What's the plan there? And even, you know, focusing first on higher ed, I mean, think that's part of the issue. Like, we need the graduation requirements for CTE to also work for Yes. Health sciences employers and a majority of other employers. Yes, so when I indicated the range of stakeholders that were involved in the formation of a graduation requirements, it did not just include universities, you've heard me also indicate the industry partners that continue to be part of that work, some are in the room today, to make sure that there's that alignment. Who is that? The Department of Labor? So the Department of Labor is here, and they represent a number of industry connections. I think the point here that you're trying to make around graduation requirements is one that we have been raising, and have really been a head up. We have recognized that because of the locally determined nature of graduation requirements, not all seats credits are being counted consistently across districts, and we find that to be unfair for students that are pursuing their CTE concentrators, and would want to make sure that they're counting towards their graduation requirements. So we have been really clear in signaling that for the last year and a half, that that issue, and have been working with the State Board of Education to identify where there does need to be some amendments to the rules. That was actually part of what we included in our statewide graduation requirements recommendation. We noted where there are discrepancies currently with the state board rules in relation to that very issue you're raising, and the field has been consistently bringing up as an issue, is that transfer of the CTE credits counting for graduation requirements. So we very much shook a lens for how the graduation requirements could support students that are interested in being CTE concentrators, and graduating high school, able to enter a career. That means that they have to have access to very high quality programming, and get the opportunity to earn those credentials, which will make them really competitive in the marketplace for the industries where they seek to work, and those industries should very much be aligned to what our needs are as a state. In fact, our graduation requirements take a really clear look at ensuring that there's a core set of fundamental skills that all students should be able to master and competent within this earning of the credits, and it allows for deepening of learning precisely to strengthen Act 77 and allow for students to engage in flexible pathways such as CTE, to be able to graduate with one high school diploma, but also to be a CTE concentrator in their area of interest and to earn a specialization for, you know, where they are looking to head after high school. I don't know. I don't know if you answered my question. I'm I'm are you going to be proposing EQS that is more specifically tailored to CTE? Yeah. So our proposal is a proposal for graduation requirements, and we also have a proposal that we've recommended to modernize the state board rules to ensure that there's that alignment and fairness of CTE credits counting. So, yes, to both. Okay. And we've already provided those recommendations to the state board. So the graduation requirements, I know that isn't the focus of today, but we do within our graduation requirement, this is highlighting some of technical corrections, but we elaborate on that within the scope of our proposal that we put forward to the state board, which very much centered the work around CTE, and recognized that some students after high school may not be interested in moving on to college or but that they were really wanting to get their rigorous experiences for being competitive in the marketplace. So all of that has been fully contemplated with the graduation requirements. One more. I'm sorry. This is, a really critical nut to crack. Sure. We so, I mean, one of the the big challenge of I don't know if it was quite reflected in your disincentives Mhmm. Slide is that students feel caught up by these requirements and having to go back to their Sunday school, and then you get into problems with the calendar alignment, etcetera. Jay actually made, I think, a very strong point at one of our CTE work group meeting, which is that that can be how we lose kids at 16, right? Is there they need to advocate for themselves to get those credits, to make sure they have all of these EQS standards met. And they're so focused on that, that they're not able to simply begin entering the workforce and being full time CTE. So are you saying that you want to make sure every student has four years of the same thing and then they decide they're not going on to college? No, that's not at all how our graduation requirements are structured. They're structured so that students are able to attain those foundational credits along assuming that they're working on a consistent path, and be able to be a CTE concentrator. What we're putting forward with the graduation requirements is to achieve two dual purposes. One is to increase the rigor for our graduate's requirements, and the second is to allow for students to have deep learning so that they're more able to participate in CTE. I think you're bringing up some really important questions, Senator, around what is our proposal for expanding CTV access? So today, you had asked me to bring forward data. Obviously, that data is supportive of your decision making. The proposal that the governor has put forward has been really consistent in terms of the key tenants all the way from last year, which is to increase early exposure in middle school. And to do that, we need to make sure that there's resources for that, there's the appropriate level of training, so that we're really integrating it into the learning experience. It becomes the way we deliver education, as opposed to having a different track for a student that might be interested in CTE, or a student that's interested in academics. These programs that we're offering in our CTE centers are very rigorous, and it's really important to integrate that work at a young age so that we're having applied learning, project based learning, that's relevant to industry. So the proposal that we're bringing forward, and we really are excited to expand further with you, is designed to increase early exposure in middle school. Creates a mechanism for us to have consistent level of program quality, ensures that all of our teachers are benefiting from the career technical aligned training that will ensure they deliver high quality content aligned to what our businesses need, and then that's happening middle school all the way through twelfth grade. So it's precisely what we're looking at today, the data. Data is pointing to some of what are well known barriers, long standing issues to achieving our goal of expanding access to CTE, and the proposal that we're putting forward is designed to address that so we can have universal CTE access, and it starts earlier, including in middle school. In terms of governance, governance does play a role, and you would ask questions around how our particular governance model in the state of Vermont compares to other states. So the state of Vermont is considered a regional system, and so there are two other states that fall into that category. Even within our regional system, I think it's important to note that there is great complex fee with how we define regions versus other state models. Within our regional system, we actually have three different models that include CD centers operated by a local school board, comprehensive high schools, and regional career and technical center school districts. 21 states deliver CTE education at the district level. 26 states use a mixed model, combining district case and regional CTE delivery. In these scenarios, districts join together to offer CTE across their district. Often, this would occur in areas of the state that are more rural, less populated. Another approach is a statewide regional governance structure for schools. It takes on the role of over CTE in all over some cases. So the AOE, through, you know, after a culmination of three years of study, has put forward that recommendation to move towards a statewide regional governance structure. We did include a link to the governance study. This is just additional detail from which

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: What's the significance of the first three bullets here? What what what is the difference between regional model versus a different model for instance?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Yeah. So a lot of this has to do with size and scale. So states that operate really large districts really can embed the resources for CTE within that district. So the district that I most recently worked at and launched CTE programming was 250,000 students. It was a district run.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: If you You're work in thinking large districts.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Yeah, larger, typically larger districts. However, we in the state of Vermont have operated CTE within our districts, which would be considered small by any means. And so because of that, we are running into some challenges as it relates to equity and consistency of quality. And so just given the particular nature of our state, the scale of our state, the recommendation is to move forward with one single government entity. So, moving away from 17 different governance units, which are all managed differently, to one governance approach. It doesn't look like anywhere else does that. There are regional statewide models. So if you we can bring all of this as a link to those different studies. The difference in terms of when we talked about Who dealt that that you who's, like, your favorite state? So, have to- To model this off of- No, seriously, because we're looking at Oregon Yeah, and so

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: this is,

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: I've worked in eight different states, and all of these implementation strategies need to be specific to the particular needs of your state. So when you think about our state, we are the size of some medium sized districts in other parts of the country. And so our region might be one of four regions in a larger state, right? So what we're always modeling here is what makes sense based on the number of students that we serve, based on how and where we serve students to ensure that we can have that consistent delivery. And all of these recommendations are based on many years of study that have evaluated these different models. But do you have a state that you like for CTE advancement? So we're recommending a statewide regional governance for the very least that we have identified. But you can't name a state that you think it's working really well in? No, we've looked at a lot of different models for different things, right? So see, Connecticut has more of a regional model. We've been looking at some states that are streamlining their Perkins administration. So we're really evaluating and learning from different state models from part of that.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: So there's no state that stands out that you'd say, that's what I, that's what Is the senator's there a state you'd go, that's who we wanna be like? And you're like, by the sound, you're like, no.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: So the three states that are using a regional based model currently are Maine and New Hampshire, tend to have this similarity in terms of size. I would say that governance alone does not define the effectiveness of a system. It's governance, funding, and quality. And so all of these pieces we're bringing together into one comprehensive recommendation that we have shared with you and are really interested in expanding on. I just want to flag, I do think our CTE directors have models in other states that they'd be happy to share with us that would lend some real insight into

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: how we move forward.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Yeah, I mean, we've done, I'm not exactly sure what information you're looking for. Are you looking for examples of how other states have both organized their governance and done the funding piece, because all of that is part of the fire reports that we can get into. There's no, there's no, like, secret about how other states do perform that. So, I would have you, you know, look at this report, which was published in 2023, which was really This is the APA control. Yeah. So, this was first started with the JFO commissioning a study in 2022. The study was extended for two more years, And so within this, you can have some additional detail around how other states are organizing their CTE delivery. Yeah. Scroll down. Scroll. I I think that this is, like, a bit of a dry look at it. I would just say I read this. Great. Only in the sense that a lot of states are rethinking how much of a focus they've had on higher education in this current era and coming up with really great vision for CTE that I don't necessarily see captured what you're proposing or not hearing like a vision from another state that captures the 60% of students who don't go on to higher education in Vermont. So this presentation was not requested to provide the vision. I have absolutely laid out the vision for universal CTE, and I'm happy to expand upon that. We are looking at that in relation to our current outcomes. We have very low graduation rates right now. This is something that's on the decline that we need to address. We would also like to see students graduating college and career ready, and that means we have indicators for both college ready and career ready, and neither of those data points are going in the right direction. So, what we're talking about here is creating a vision for CTE, which is universal CTE, and acknowledging that not all students will enter college after graduation, but we want to make sure they're entering, they're graduating prepared to enter meaningful careers, and that comes with having really robust hands on training where they can earn industry aligned credentials that are recognized by businesses that need them here in Vermont, and that's absolutely part of the vision. We are moving towards that through a variety of different mechanisms, one including our graduation requirements and strengthening the implementation of flexible pathways to allow for more participation in CTE and to gain that earlier exposure. So I think that the vision is one that really has been collectively determined by the state of Vermont. What you've asked me to address today are some data points that you have questions around to further inform your policy, and hope that that can be instructive for where you head next. In terms of other models, definitely you can look at other states. All of that, again, it is really important, and I think we've heard this consistently from Vermont. Our approach in Vermont should not be taking one model and just flopping it on top of Vermont. It does have to align to research and align to the context of Vermont. And so that's why we brought forward a really robust proposal that builds upon lessons learned, identifies very clear goals for what we want to achieve, and there are some additional resources for you as you continue to pursue policy choices related to expanding CTE. So I think the scope of this presentation was limited to very pointed data requests that you had asked me to provide. All of those links are included within the documentation that was shared, and this would now be a time for you to request any additional data that can inform your decision making or any questions they might have around the policy proposal. Can you put your slide back up, please? Sure. You just have to go back in. Which slide are you going to? The one where you described the disincentive. Sure. So this is exactly where we got in our separate working group that had a lot of the stakeholders at the table, including Jay and Bruce Durkey. Where And we got, and this was fully with Roose Durkee at the table, is that it isn't clear how a proposal to send all the money to the state and then redistribute it or run it through one district solves any of these problems. Can you go through these and articulate how your model solves these problems? Yeah, so I wanna be really careful in how you're describing that. We are not suggesting sending money to the state and then distributing that data. I'm not sure exactly how you're characterized why you characterize it that I think that's a good place to dig in because that is what I heard is that all of the tuition, once a student decides they want to do CTE, which I don't know still where that is in your proposal, the payment for that student CTE programming would go to a new ESOP Education Special Assessment District, something at the state level, including the 5,000,000 of Perkins funds. And it said something on your last slide deck, the hiring and firing of faculty would be done by this ESOP. So, let's take a step back. The recommendation is to move forward with one single governance unit, or CTE, and that is due to our scale, due to the barriers we see with consistent quality, in terms of being equitable funding across the state. This is very consistent with the overarching approach we're taking for education transformation, which recognizes that larger districts are able to achieve scale, they're able to be more equitable with how funding is distributed, and to account for the needs of a larger community of students. So scale is a large factor as we make a recommendation towards going towards both one governance unit, along with ensuring that we get funding. The current structure has great variability. We reported that, we have shared that, there's a lot of consensus around that for the last three years. The actual cost of the programs varies significantly, and those cost differences in terms of higher cost does not necessarily translate into higher program quality by all the measures that we have evaluated. And so the proposal is designed to move towards a more equitable system that is operating at scale so that dollars are going further to support the greatest needs of state. The conversation was around how to actually organize that governance unit. So if you recall, when the governor first put forward his transformation plan, he had suggested that Sorry, that wasn't my question. My question

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

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: how one single governance unit solves these problems if you still have, let's say, 27 school districts. How do you have 27 school districts and one CTE district and solve any of these problems? So definitely having larger K-twelve districts would be more supportive, but certainly moving from 17 different governance units to one creates an efficiency that is helpful to ensure that we can operate at scale and ensure a level of equity in terms of coordinating with the sending districts. The addition is that we have never said that one part of this policy proposal is sufficient. We have approached this as a three legged stool. Governance, funding, and quality are all tied together, and so governance plays a very important role, but it must be connected to other considerations regarding funding and quality, which is why our proposal is more comprehensive than just suggesting one governance. Governance plays a role in terms of the distribution of the dollar so that they go further and are more equitable. The funding is an expression of how we can ensure quality, which indicates the level of funding that's needed to operate programs so that they can deliver on the expectations for learning, and our quality objectives are tied into our education quality standards, our statewide graduation requirements, and also updates and modernization that's needed to the State Board of Education rules. So, I think to summarize that, operating at larger districts has a value, but the proposal itself is to take a comprehensive, true transformational approach, which is looking at governance, funding and quality. That's what's gonna make, strengthen our system, that's what's gonna ensure that we have alignment, equity and quality in every aspect of what we deliver, including CTE. I think you have a lot of people who will say you lose a lot of connection with the local communities, with the industry partners and with local need if you have one statewide CTE system but 20 or so regional school district. I just don't see how it solves any of these problems. So the point of having one CTE governance is to ensure that there is that level of expertise that can provide CTE integrated programming, integrated training, consistency of quality across the state. It also allows us to truly take a statewide view. The comprehensive needs assessment evaluates, yes, statewide needs, but also evaluates local needs too. So as part of that process, the safety centers, the districts would still be involved in evaluating what their local hiring demands are, and that should, it absolutely will result in differentiating those programs across the state where they are needed. So nothing about moving to a single statewide governance, it's shifting the requirement for doing a robust, data driven, community informed, comprehensive treatment. I'm sorry. Can I say one more thing? So last time you came in, you started with something that I think we've created some shared agreement around in the committee and beyond in the work group, which is comprehensive CTEs. So it's the idea that if we are creating fewer school districts with regional high schools, we want students to be as close to a career technical experience as possible. This seems to dislocate the system from having local knowledge and district knowledge and then saying in the future we just put it back in. How so? How are you? Why do you think that this would disconnect? So you just said you believe you have the expertise at AOE. This is an AOE, so this is moving towards an education service agency, which for all intents and purposes is like a district. So you might ask, why didn't we suggest district? Because that level of structured legitimacy wasn't needed in order to achieve the policy goals. Moving towards an education service agency allowed for more agility and flexibility to truly manage and oversee CTE within the complexity of our current structure, allowing for the state at such point in time, ten, twenty years, when we have regional high schools built, to reevaluate whether or not that remains to be the best way to deliver. It very well may be, or it may not, but this gives you the ability and the latitude to reevaluate that at such time. There's nothing in this proposal that would deter us from moving towards that vision. In fact, what this does is allow the state to prepare the system, identify the funding for school construction aid, determine those districts, and then build that, which will we all know will take time. What this is acknowledging is that the vision that we're describing is probably two decades to get to that vision. And right now, we have a clear and express priority to expand CTE, and we owe it to our students to do that. We've created this approach as a way to ensure a consistent level of quality, a consistent level of funding that we know will go down those expectations.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Any other questions? Okay, thanks. Thank you. Thank

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: you for having me.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yep, thank you. Final information was sent, so

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: thank you. If there's anything else to you, please let us know. The denialist at

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the school level. Why don't we take a break? Gonna be back. We'll come back at 05:03. Great. Thank you.