Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We're live.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: All right, Senate Education Committee of the afternoon of February 25. We're taking some testimony as we try to course forward on first part of, well, accident free. And today we have a couple of superintendents and one school by the group. So we're gonna start with Jamie Conardy from We Wouldn't We Don't Should Should Ourselves or One Tutor. So you're on.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: All right, thanks for having me. My name's Jamie Kunardy. I'm superintendent of schools at the White River Valley Supervisory Union. I'm now in the midst of my six years superintendent of schools and previously served as a principal for seven years at Williamstown Schools, and this marks my fifteenth year as educational administrator, state of Vermont. I wanna begin by thanking the Senate education committee, allowing me to have the opportunity to testify today on the maps currently being discussed in both the house and senate education committee, along with the policy proposals provided by chair Bongartz in relation to the map that was introduced last week. I

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: want

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: to also again reiterate that I agree and fully support the intent of Act 73. I also want to thank your committee for the time and effort you've put in throughout the fall and early winter prior to the current legislative session to visit schools, supervisory unions, school districts, and to hear from the concerned constituents across the state. It is clear based upon the maps and corresponding policy that were introduced to your committee last week by chair Bongartz that you've taken the feedback provided seriously and have tried to incorporate it into your proposal. I want to specifically call to your attention that you are considering a hybrid approach to mapping that provides for both supervisory unions and supervisory districts in the future state. I find that to be commendable and want to share my gratitude for that approach. It has and continues to be my desire to approach any and all mergers voluntarily, including mergers of districts that constitute larger supervisory needs. And therefore, I wanna be clear that I prefer that any and all discussion related to maps aligns with policy proposal provided by the redistricting task force, but I also wanna be abundantly clear that I much prefer your approach to mapping as compared to the only map produced at the House Education Committee thus far. That map eliminates supervisory governance structures altogether and results in forced consolidated supervisory school districts. I also want to be clear that type of approach is a non starter for the WRDSU and the 10 communities that I serve in my role as a superintendent of schools for WRDSU. In addition, it fails to recognize the previous testimony and abundance of public comment that have come from rural communities across our state since H454 was initially introduced. I come to you today to continue to advocate that we ensure that the next steps we take are strategic, intentional, thoughtful, and measured in order to make certain that unintended consequences do not result in a detriment to our students or the future of our rural towns throughout the state. To this end, I want to be clear, I support many of the steps outlined in the redistricting task force report and the corresponding policy provided by Senator Bongartz proposal. I want to emphasize though that any and all changes to governance structures, including to supervisory union boundaries through the drawing of maps, must not be implemented until 07/01/2027. This provides for the time needed in order to allow for strategic planning to recur in order to have a roadmap for success established prior to becoming fully operational. I want to be clear, I understand that you would be taking action to create those SU boundaries and that they would be implemented starting 07/01/1926, but that you won't what I'm saying is they wouldn't become operational within those boundaries until 07/01/2027. There's strong evidence that voluntary approaches to creating collaborative systems and even voluntary workers can create cost savings and improve educational outcomes. Cooperative alliances that facilitate cost savings improve systems while still retaining deep local roots make sense. This position statement supports a voluntary process by which collaborative efforts can achieve the outcomes of improved education for students at reasonable costs. So therefore, again, I'm recommending that you then provide for two years of voluntary mergers to occur from July '27 through June 3029 to allow for the voluntary mergers to occur as provided via Senator Bongartz's proposal. If mergers have not occurred voluntarily by July '29, then the State Board of Education could utilize the authority provided to them by the changes proposed to consolidate each of the desired number of school districts. While making certain that we acknowledge in legislation that forced consolidation needs to be backed by clear and research data that supports greater efficiency, results in cost savings, and provides for better outcomes for our students. The notion that the act of simply consolidating is going to result in savings and better outcomes for our students isn't supported in research and therefore requires that clear criteria needs to be developed for any force consolidation and it needs to be transparent prior to being implemented by the State Board of Education.

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: I

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: understand that Vermonters are also looking for immediate action to address efficiency, rising costs, and property taxes. Therefore, I want to once again ask that any and all proposals that your committee considers also include the strongly researched policies of cooperative education service areas. And by requesting all SUs and SDs work cooperatively and collaboratively to partner in these service areas by no later than 07/01/2027. This could allow for them to be operational in the immediate future and begin addressing the efficiencies articulated in the Redistricting Task Force report. I don't see this as another added level of bureaucracy and find them incredibly important in order for us to address the needs highlighted in the recently released Special Education Report provided by the Agency of Education. I also want to be clear that I am completely supportive of the change in the education funding formula and believe that our current funding formula consists of too many variables in order to provide predictable tax rates year to year due to the complexity and significant number of elements that play a role in the finalized residential tax rate. I'm going give you an example. I currently have a Unified School District in our SU that is actually requesting $43,112 less from the education fund at FY27 versus FY26. But their projected residential tax rate in FY27 are increasing by more than 14.5. That doesn't align with the values of Vermonters who seek to find common sense solutions to complex problems. To this end, I believe that the legislature should continue to study, analyze, works to fix the founding formula with increased research and attention to the foundation formula. This shouldn't be implemented though until fiscal year FY30 when the newly formed mergers have taken effect. Therefore, I recommend that you utilize the provisions provided via S220 to provide for an immediate tool to address Vermonter's concerns during fiscal years '28 and '29 until the revised funding formula is implemented in FY13. I want to be clear that I see a spending cap as only a tool that should be used on a transitional basis and needs to assure school districts that it provides for safeguards in order to address things like decreased weights, percentage drop in long term weighted average daily membership, and impacts on per pupil spending on things that are out of district's control. Example, health insurance premiums. Because they're statewide barns. I'd ask that your committee look to examine whether it makes the most sense to cap per pupil spending or if Act 68 spending may actually make sense, gaining the money that a district's requesting from the Ed Fund. Based on that, we'll take out some of the unpredictable variables that come into play regarding student weights. As has been previously stated by members of the educational field, data integrity has and continues to be a major concern. Therefore, the approach to look at Act 68 spending to me makes some more sense. It's literally education spending minus local revenue, that's how much we're asking for the end fund. Or you could do a combination of the two. Look at Act 68 spending and put a cap there, if that makes more sense for a district because they lost some weighted pupils as an example. So I'm gonna give you an example here in a second that talks about a district that I have that has worked really hard to decrease their spend, but their per pupil spend is going up significantly. I also want to ask that any cap on spending also be aligned directly with announced elementary and secondary tuitions for all public and private schools. You can't place a cap on spending per pupil for a district that is not operating, example, Grandpa Hancock, or who you heard from their board chair, or has non operating grades and allow for district to increase their announced tuition beyond that percentage of the spending cap because they can't control those costs. I also urge the committee to make certain that we have some type of transitional method in place to deal with a district that loses pupils. This is the example I was just talking about. In the event that per pupil spending is put into place in the S-two 20 and not considering Act 68 spending. I currently have one district that has a board approved budget of an increase of less than 1%. The increase is 73,159. That's their increase in their expenditures. But their per pupil spending is up 9.28%, meaning they would need to significantly cut programming for students in order to comply with a per pupil spend cap due primarily to a decrease in average daily membership at the pre K level, and that was specific to that their pre K students were going to a childcare center, that that childcare center lost their licensed teacher, and the way the regulations read for universal pre K, if it's not a licensed teacher, I don't get to count those students. And so we lost them in their Aberysteen membership, and we had a drop in weights due to a decrease in free and reduced lunch rate percentage, given changes around direct certification via Medicaid qualification. I'm open minded and supportive though of a transitional tool like S-two 20, but just caution we need to take all the aforementioned factors into account prior to passing the final legislation. I want to conclude by indicating that I have an agreement that something needs to recur in order to alleviate property tax pressures, increase student achievement and social emotional growth, as well as increase accountability and efficiency across Vermont's education system. I believe we could accomplish all this without the need to actually draw lines on a map, but I want to commend your committee for considering a map that provides supervisory unions and places them into law. I believe that a timeline, I've outlined a timeline around actionable steps that I think need to be taken in legislation to provide for education transformation. The first step would be that cooperative educational service areas are assigned by the end of the session. The districts and SUs know by July 1 where they're assigned to CSOS that the newly formed SUs that would take effect in law by the end of the session would become operational by 07/01/2027, that voluntary mergers of school districts within newly formed supervisory union and supervisory districts be done by 06/30/2029, or utilize the authority of the State Board to require consolidation as provided via Chair Bongartz proposal. With an important reminder that this must be aligned to research criteria that provide for efficiency and better outcomes for students, meaning that the onus is also on the state board to say that if we're gonna require a forced merger, that it's gonna result in savings and better outcomes for kids. We need to develop criteria that they're using, not just bigger, better. We need to use temporary spending caps in FY '28 and '29 as provided via S-two 20, making sure that we address some of the concerns I noted previously. And implementation of a revised funding form would take effect on 07/01/2029 for FY third, once voluntary mergers have taken place to reach desired numbers of SUs SDs as outlined in your policy. I believe Vermonters understand common sense solutions, the power of local democracy to solve difficult situations, and have asked for and need a more transparent education funding system. I ask that you consider approaching this work without the needs to draw lines on maps, but also again, share my sincere appreciation for your approach to mapping thus far. I believe that incorporating SU within your maps integrates the feedback you've received from concerned Vermonters and works to provide protections for rural communities across our state. The good news is that I believe you all on this committee are committed to increasing fiscal responsibility, preserving local democracy, and raising school accountability, while also having a strategic plan that resulted in student achievement and social. Therefore, I want you all to know that I'm more than willing to partner with you as an educational leader to make certain you have policy and legislation that meets those commendable and incredibly important goals for our students, our communities, and for all Vermonters. Thank you. Thank you. Questions?

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, got a number of questions, I'm happy to flip flops. Okay. So on page two, on page two, mentioned consolidating its desired number of school districts. What's that desired number? What are you referencing?

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: I'm referencing what came out in regards to chair bond variances.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay, you were agreeing with Target? Yeah, Target makes sense.

[Speaker 0]: Is this all your thinking, or have you collaborated with some others and come up with kind of

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: what you do today? I've shared this thinking with my board members of the SU board and certainly my administration, and taking feedback, and folks feel like this timeline is manageable, and I also did share it with some other superintendents and board members from across the state, both in SUs and SDs, and I haven't, I didn't hear any significant pushback

[Speaker 0]: at all along what I was testifying to today.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Nope. What are we doing with that?

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So you you said that you would have in favor of guidelines on maps. I mean, you support Senator Heffernan's one district, the one six.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: You know, the the one district plan I I have concerns about because, again, the same concerns I've had in the past around depersonalizing local representation to a district. That's what I worry about. And so I favor this idea of cementing SUs because that protects district boards on a much more local level, which I think local democracy is good. I think it builds accountability to the system. I believe as a superintendent supervisor union that I am held to level of accountability around fiscal responsibility and academic outcomes and how I best serve the students in my 10 schools because those board members are beholden to represent the folks of those district towns. And I worry about when we get into a much larger district that we're gonna lose the opportunity to have that direct feedback from those served just like you all referred back to the constituents you served.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: How would you do it with sea salt? You're gonna have to, because I haven't actually had a wrong problem in 2000, but you recommended that you do it for

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Iowa Yeah, in the I recommend that you put us all into a ceasefire in the summer because I look at, when you look at the Ed Fund, right, in regards to things that that could help control, special education spending in general for us to say is up a great deal, and I believe that those larger seesaws could help us get specialized programming to better address that. I also think some cost drivers, example transportation, Nader actually did a really good article right on transportation around how it's like a monopoly. There's no competition. I think those larger CESA, here we are reaching for transportation contracts could help get at that. You know, the seesaw thing in regards to forcing a regional collaboration to address some of those concerns makes a great deal of sense to me to get at some of that low hanging fruit, but has major costs. And I don't see it as another bureaucracy because in regards to that work, if we said we're gonna pick up those big money things and better programming for kids, in regards to special ed. We're very reliant on how to district placements. You've heard me say that before. And when we do that, we lose control in regards to the students' programming and being able to better progress monitoring their outcomes. I believe that we need to take control of that programming in regards to our public education system, not be reliant on 100,000 to $150,000 out of district placements. Yeah, and you know, the SU and why, what I like about the SU is that you have a model, really. SUs operate very much like small BOCES, right? So we have a model that we know

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: that we can do that. Yeah, we agreed with that for two years. We were advocating Baldwin super unions as opposed to BOCES two years ago. All right, well, there you go. Yeah. So back to seesaws or BOCES. So if it's voluntary, do you think that a one year timeline is aggressive, or is it doable?

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: For BOCES, I'm not suggesting that that be voluntary. I'm suggesting that the BOCES, if you assign folks areas to a BOCES by the end of

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: this session. You say requesting all SUs and SUs to work cooperatively and collaboratively to partner in these service areas no later than July 22.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: So what I mean is you assign them by the end of this session and they have a year to get themselves up and running.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So they want to get you, okay. And then, again, kind of an old topic, but I'm gonna hit it again. So we have the potential of having, if we form or incentivize seesaws, BOCES to be established, that those boundaries could be radically different from the boundaries of

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: what we

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: call the education leadership boundaries, is SU, SD, what have you. You see a conflict between the fact that they're not actually, they have different boundaries, clearly one is business related and the other is, leadership related, Do you see a conflict there?

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: In regards to, if you continue to move forward in regards to keeping the minds on the map around your STDs, like you've been discussing, and you know that you have this gray area of SDs, right? Within your the map you've all discussed. You could start to assign those current SDs and or SUs. You can do an overlay of a seesaw map on top of that. And I don't think you're gonna impact after they voluntarily merge necessarily, because you're looking at much more bigger regions within the seesaw.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: What's the difference between doing it with a district map or seesaws? Couldn't they be one of the same as far as signing?

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: The difference with the seesaws is is that that they are working together right at an administrative level, and you're not losing your

[Speaker 0]: district Are

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you thinking four c slots, five?

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Well, I haven't actually drawn those receipts yet myself yet. I mean, I'm happy to do that and email. Was just gonna send an email. I mean, I think that seven makes some sense to me. Okay, yes, go ahead.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I just wanted to reflect back on the fact that probably one of the most relevant products of the redistricting task force was to get us a five potency wall. Yeah, five. T sounds very similar to, know, that's a business relationship to a leadership, central leadership relationship amongst those regions as well. I just,

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: think they used the superintendent, regional superintendent groups again to draw that down, I believe.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Good. Do you have one? I I do.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I've been thinking about the more reflections you've raised that I for a which is the criteria that the board reviews. The board were to engage and enforce such orchards if they didn't happen. State of all clear criteria. Do have you thought about I've been racking my brains trying to figure out how to do that.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: I just started to think about it. Think writing those testimony made me realize that I

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: need to think about that. Yep.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: So I don't have I have to formalize what that criteria would be yet. I I literally, while putting together this testimony, realized I think that's important.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Scott, you talked about some weird indication of savings. Definitely needs

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: to create an indication of savings. Needs to make, right, like, needs to ensure that the partnership works for kids. Right? There's some geography to that. And certainly would not look, and I think your policy already does this, doesn't change operating how

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: their governance operations work around in regards to operations of the districts. Keep thinking about that.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: I will, yeah, no, I will do that. John? Yeah, no,

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: go ahead, John. I was gonna poke my finger into the same issue for a second. So you say cost, resulting cost savings, page three, line three, results in cost savings. I want to reiterate that we may not be talking about cost savings. The objective, I think the primary objective is cost neutral, like flat and fair. Okay, it's a different perspective that we need to keep reiterating that we're really not talking about a savings, especially in the short term, you know, the first couple years. You know, there could actually be a bit of a bump while we reorganize and let two different systems morph into one future system. But we're looking at flattening the budget, you know, we're looking at containing costs, like dramatically flattening costs. It's a hugely different perspective.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Yeah, and I'll correct the record when I say cost savings, I'm speaking exactly what

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you prescribed them.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: I see savings are less, yeah, decrease of, yeah, less of

[Speaker 0]: an increase over time. Better outcomes is gonna make

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: saving over time. So thank you, because you're helping us think all around here. John Luke Pottsie too. You know, FOSI's or Seesha's concept had been out there for two years, And it's what we left it as an option. Well, we took advantage of Well, one One. One did. Yes. So any idea why they didn't take advantage of it? It was cost saving or flattening?

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: I can, I mean, I can speak for our SU? Frankly, we've been very much paying attention to this conversation and trying to make certain that it made sense for our communities. So I would say that that's taking the priority of us pursuing this. That's Jamie speaking for deputy director.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Oh, yes. Okay. The middle of page three, you talk about your SU requesting only $43,000 of an increase in one fiscal year to the next. That coils down to about given the foundation formula that's three students, the value of three students. So are you at this point relatively comfortable with the conversation that's been going on with the foundation going through?

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: I am. Yeah. No. Yeah. Yeah. No.

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: I am comfortable with the foundation.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Top of page four you talk about Act 68 and unpredictable variables. The unpredictable variables, it's clear that you know year to year you're dealing, we're all dealing, you have different students, different subset of students. Is that what you mean by unpredictable variables or?

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Yeah, one major. Different weights, right? The weights work such, it's not as I know you know, but I'm just saying for everybody, you could have a family of five move out, right, who could have a decrease in weights, right, versus a five that moves in, but it could actually, what it's gonna cost to educate the five that moves in could be more. And so that's my point. The weights are unpredictable in regards to what grade levels the students are served at with the one five family versus the other five families. So that's what I'm trying

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to say We'll have that same problem with the foundation formula because it only follows the way it's doing.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Yeah, it is, when I've said that the foundation formula needs to be researched and nuanced, I think we need to make certain that those weights make sense in a practical application that way. And one of the things that I have been critical about in the past was, and I spoke out against prior to implementation was Act 127, and I had some concerns about the weight that you can find me in testimony way back when before that was implemented in House Ways and Means raising a flag around concerns I had around that policy and what it was gonna do in regards to spending across the state. And I believe that that is part of why we are here today.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: One more? Yep.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Middle of page four, we talk the subject was s two twenty and effects on Yeah. You know, per pupil spending, what have you. But not written in here was, I think, a comment that you made about pre k only if licensed Oh, yeah.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: We lost some

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: weights. Well, okay. So, here's the question.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Having a licensed practitioner, educator in the community or in the SU is different from counting the number of students who need those services and then we figure out how best to provide. Is there something wrong with our legislation? Not necessarily all of this. What we're talking about, the fact that you can't get those students recognized because there's not a community licensed pre K provider. Is that, what's the problem here?

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: That is the concern, right, Senator. So within Act 166, the universal pre K, unlike my high school students, right, who can go to an independent school and be served via non licensed teachers in regards to pre k without a licensed pre k teacher serving them in a independent preschool, I no longer get to count those students as pre k students.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Are

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: you gonna stay? Yeah.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: We have one question, go ahead. Okay. Just

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: a comment. At the very end, as you wrap up on page five, talk about blah blah blah, increasing fiscal responsibility, preserving local democracy, raising school accountability. You gotta keep harping on education quality. It may not be totally applicable to your SU, but in our SU, in our region, you know, we got some challenges. We think we, the initiative that we're trying to exercise is to increase education quality by exercising some of the other levers here, but if we're not enhancing education quality which you don't have in here then we got a call.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: I appreciate that and I think it's I didn't use education quality but when I said student achievement and social emotional growth, to me, that meant education quality.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Guess I was pinging out a different sentence, but I just wanna make sure it's constantly, you know, here we go into town meeting weeks, it's about the kids. It's not about the kids.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. 100%. I should. Yeah. Yeah. I'd love to talk more about that. Those issues are different. Different. See Ryan's his way of seeing his So I think it's Michael Winterton.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: He's gonna speak about education quality at WRBSU. I am. Who's Digger?

[Speaker 0]: Hashtag slay.

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Senator, I get so can I just offer speaking of educational quality? This is a portrait of a learner that I spoke about in my testimony. So there's copies of that for all of you, As well as Sweet Digger articles, one on school bus companies, and lack of competition, number of Vermont students and disabilities on the rise, and the Yale grad student who did a job of studying act 46 and of of cost savings and mergers. So you bought all those. Yeah.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We had it written. She had it written.

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Right. Yeah. So I I referenced those stuff.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yeah. First of all, thank you. So for the record, you are.

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Michael Livingston. And I will I will jump to that. Michael Livingston, I worked as an educator in primarily the Upper Valley Of Vermont for over forty years. Slightly more than half of that time was spent as an elementary school teacher and administrator in the public school system. I also have twenty years of experience as a teacher and administrator in an independent school. I have been incredibly fortunate to teach in grades K through 12 in a variety of settings. Before I go a little farther into my own background, thank you for this opportunity to speak. One time, I didn't think this was random whatsoever. This is an incredible opportunity. So I really appreciate it. Thank you for your extensive work regarding education transportation in particular. I want to thank you for your commitment to recognizing the importance of supervisory agents. Your work on the behalf of SUs of I think is a paramount importance and I hope to detail some of that in my testimony today. I retired four years ago. I was just serving as principal at the Tumber Central School where I helped reimagine programming in the First Brain School District moving all kids K to four to Tumber Central School and all five through eighth graders, fifth through eighth graders to the Chelsea School. I'm currently a member of the Sharon Elementary School Board in Sharon, Vermont, and as a result, also a member of the White River Valley Supervisory. Our schools are essential to our communities just as our communities are essential for our schools. At a recent brainstorming session with our incredibly vibrant and active PTO and Sharon, They generated a list of over 30 activities and events that were held at the school alone last year. And those activities find our school and our community helping create a really a lasting meaningful connection. Connections that are palpable the moment you walk into our school building. Those connections are not an accident. They're the result of strong leadership, leadership built around trust and respect that is honestly communicated to students by the entire faculty and staff all day, every day. It's a belief system grounded in a sense of belonging that permeates the school from pre K right through up to the superintendent, and that success is wedded to an unwavering sense of trust. That trust finds us. Indeed, it connects us, and given the extreme and growing needs of our families in rural Vermont, preserving trust has become the central role of our small rural schools. Trust is the essential ingredient for connection, and it turns out that connection matters a lot. It isn't the number of after school floods or sports being offered by schools that matter. It's being seen and spoken to and held and challenged every day by multiple school personnel. That's the recipe for success, and it doesn't happen in mega schools successful only after hours long bus rides. It happens at your town school where you are respected, trusted, known, believed in, challenged, and held accountable, where you are truly seen. What I'm describing to you is a highly successful system and one that's driven by strong, passionate leadership. I firmly believe that our examination of educational reform needs to focus on leadership. The question you need to be asking is, what are we doing to cultivate strong leaders? I have witnessed the absolute transformation of our supervisory union in the last six years. Please understand, it's not perfect, but I don't know of a system of any kind or at any scale that is. What makes RSU so remarkable to me is the ability of leadership to communicate a vision so clearly, to get so many to eagerly join in, to watch the momentum it creates from across all facets of the school, from the custodial staff to food service personnel, bus drivers, paraprofessionals, teaching staff, and even parent volunteers. Please let me elaborate. Our Supervisory Union office provides outstanding support while operating at a cost below the state average and improving incomes year over year. And you've heard this before, but it's important to say RSU operates like a mini BOCES or seesaw. An effective superintendent empowered by engaged boards can create a distributed leadership team aligned to goals and mission while serving students in districts of varying sizes. I want to highlight the work of some of our key members. Our chief academic officer has overseen the push to coordinate literacy instruction throughout the supervisory unit. Professional development on the science of reading is being offered to all teachers, pre K through two, and we're using either Hegarty or foundations, which are both research based foundational approaches to early literacy across all those grades. We are coordinating the EL Language Arts programs in grades three through eight throughout the entire SU as well. The Bridges Math program, with its fabulous number corner, I'm a real advocate for numeracy instruction, with young kids, is being used by all pre k through five teachers, and connected math is a program for sixth through eighth graders. And at DSU, curriculum is guided by the Portrait of a Learner, which I handed out to you, a framework that was generated two years ago by committees of parents, students, board members, paraprofessionals, teachers, administrators. In my forty plus years in education, it is among the documents I have been most proud to develop. Please find a moment today to take a close look at it because I regard this a template for success. It recognizes our need to consider the multiplicity of needs presented by our students and our families. It provides multiple pathways to success, and it honors the enormous diversity of learners that we encounter every day. Our Portrait of a Learner is posted in every classroom in the SQM, and it's not as lip service to the administration, but rather as a beacon, reminding us of the six pillars of success of being the opposite: effective communication and collaboration, academic proficiency, creativity and curiosity, flexible thinking, resiliency and well-being, and personal and community responsibility. In the last two weeks alone, I have seen multiple examples of this profile in action. Our fifth graders wrote short pieces about why they love their school and their town to read to the elders in our community who gather once a month for lunch. Each grade takes one of those lunches to serve their elders, eat with them and clear tables and clean up. Is beyond heartwarming. Last week, I listened to the fourth graders school share their reports on famous people from around the world that they had chosen to research right about Each presentation included a portrait they created in art class. The fourth graders were mentored by the sixth graders who are themselves prepared for a Capstone project and a multimedia presentation on a topic of their own excuses. At least I forget, I can't fail to add the presentation here at the State House just several weeks ago where our fifth graders showcased the all school composting system that they single handedly are responsible for maintaining hundreds of pounds of compost a day. Perhaps you have an opportunity to see their comprehensive exhibit, but it's a great example of examining schoolwork and success through this lens. The SU RSU coordinates food service, and I've seen a huge improvement in the quality of what's being offered. Transportation is no is no longer the province of each individual school, and there's no question that shared contract could cause. We share the expertise of the special ed director who currently oversees and coordinates services SUY. This year, the White River Valley Supervisory Committee created the Waterman Campus Program where 15 currently struggling students in grades five through 10 attend school in the basement of the SU office building in an effort to find their footing and eventually successfully return to their home schools. The program has been a huge success by any and every measure. Students are obviously happy and engaged. Visit attendance is at 90% for students who are incredibly chronically truant. And for these vulnerable high need students, the other option was to attend an alternative program outside of our district where we would have no oversight of their progress. Those programs cost taxpayers minimally a $100,000. Our program cost per student this year is $23,000. This program honestly should be a model for s use SMEs and for future BOSU's or success. Our technology directors help me coordinate all of the various databases under one umbrella program, need of Almont. Staff have been trained to reliably use our databases, which allows for our school data teams to more accurately assess the needs of our students. Data is now much more readily accessible to faculty, staff, to parents, and as a result of these efforts, attendance is up and major misbehaviors are down. Our business manager, I don't even know to say about our business manager, is an absolute godsend to our school district, providing a level of expertise and accessibility at a small school like Sharon would never be a different.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Boy, am

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: I been talking to her a lot in preparation for town meeting. Anyone who suggests or even implies supervisory means are incapable of coordinating curriculum, instruction, professional development, and ultimately positive opportunities for our students is wrong. I can literally show you. In fact, many of you saw it for yourselves just a few months ago when you visited the high school in South Dakota. But, ultimately, this isn't about just the fact that SUs are capable of replicating what some say is only possible in an SD. The extraordinary difference between these two governance models is that SUs preserve local voice. As a local school board member, I am literally held accountable by my neighbors and friends in town. I have to be able

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: to keep people from doing that while we're doing that.

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: The connection between local schools and the school boards is an integral part of the bedrock foundation of our democracy. Any thought that we would be taking steps to dismantle that relationship is, in my opinion, irresponsible. There is no need to do so. No one currently operating a supervisory union wishes to impose our model on everyone else. Why then? Are those utilizing a supervisory district model so eager to impose their structure on us? It's not just unnecessary. It's counterproductive. I'll just end by saying it's my hope that the legislature would consider five actionable steps. The first four involve revolving around real cost drivers that we as board members face. Healthcare, obviously, special education, you know, student mental health needs, which continue to rise, and transportation. The fifth would be to examine the educational landscape in Vermont, identify exemplary programs, showcase them as a model for change and success. That expertise and capacity does exist in our state, and where you find outstanding schools, you're going to find outstanding leadership. So I'll conclude by acknowledging the tremendous efforts your committee has made in the field of collecting relevant data and your efforts taking really extensive feedback in this committee. Thank you for giving this important conversation that justice deserves. I believe schools can and will collaborate and negotiate pre voluntary consolidation. I don't believe that we need maps. We need effective leadership. But if we do embrace maps, and this is my sincere hope, they include issues. They offer the benefit of scale and the value of finding creative pragmatic solutions to problems specific to their communities while preserving the models.

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: Thank you.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you. So,

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: Michael, thanks. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: A hard decision for me is like when you talk about small schools and how vital they are to communities, because I totally understand that. But what is the answer when you run into that it is just not efficient to run that screen because of cost? Because everything has a price price tag. What's the answer there when that

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Yeah. Well, I have something of a snapshot into that because at the White at the First Grand District, we actually needed to examine the size of the classes for those schools to be moved, the a to four into one building and the five to eight other to increase those class sizes. So there does become a time when your class size is so small that I actually feel as an educator that you're actually not serving students well. So I think that the the trouble that we all understand is the emotional nature of that conversation for our towns. And I think what we really need to do is convene a group of people who are former educators, who are neutral to the process, we can go in and sit down with those communities and actually have a conversation where you actually go through those costs and benefits, because the costs and benefits are not just dollars, they are student experiences as well. I was saying that is

[Speaker 0]: not lost here in that committee.

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

[Speaker 0]: However, it does eventually come down to we just can't keep school because it's not economically.

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: And I think that I would agree, and I think that the place where people really end up joining on board is when they recognize we're actually not doing those really small citizens, tiny schools, justice to our children. So I appreciate the students in grade five been together for seven years, and in some cases, it's actually really not healthy.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So you're on the last page. All I tell

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: are bold.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: No one currently operating a supervisory union wishes to oppose their model or anyone else. Can you elaborate on that?

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Well, I I I find it disconcerting that in other parts of the building, the SD model is looking to be imposed on top of all of us. When we actually have a system that's functioning well, saves money, operates at less money per student, and really does function and promote what we consider to be a mini BOCES model. So the idea that we would take superimposed supervisory districts on top of everyone when we actually have a viable working model right now that's less expensive and keeps our communities involved makes no sense.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So if if Windham supervisory union was the model for the state of Vermont, We're gonna say we're gonna make that work. How does act 60 fall into that? How do we make sure it's equitable across the state?

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Well, for a supervisory union, you know, I'm not sure that, well, I wanna make sure I don't get out of my lane here, but I think that in Chittenden County, a supervisory district is a model that they never let go. They're familiar with it. They feel comfortable with it, And maybe in a larger urban environment, that makes some sense. But when you look at the geography of a of a SU like Weiberg Valley SU where it takes a good forty to forty five minutes to get it from the Stockbridge, Rochester to Stratford. You know, on my concern about running an SD like that with one board of five to seven members, some of whom may not know anything about their school, is to be with lose any connection with our school. And I think the pawns of that system are looking for ways to distance the board from a difficult decision to go to the schools. And I feel, currently, that those decisions need to be made at the local level, but we may need to promote and provide access to educators who are going and eat with towns and talk about what are the services, how is it actually working for students on the because it is incredibly, as you know.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: That's what they do at Chittenden County. Yeah. They do like your CDU. Yep. They actually go out to the elementary school schools. Yeah. So, if they're offering our best.

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: I I I really believe that Vermonters are very pragmatic and would understand if they were approached in a way that allowed them to enter a conversation without being told what to do but listen to what's the impact on children that ultimately choices. That's humans, Jack. One

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: one thing I ought to remember to ask all three of you about before we're done here is the right size for an SU as we're going forward. I talked to one person this morning. They called me about one of the SUs saying it's too big and it will be really hard to manage infection. You've made this point before that if it gets too big, it becomes bureaucratic. Just for all of you, just think about the little one, come back to that at the end of this discussion about size and make sure we get a feel for it. Do you have any questions? I do not. Okay. Thank you, Michael.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you. And you're gonna stay. Alright. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Sure.

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: Doctor. I'll pretty well. Alright.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Never gets any better. Does. Yeah. Never this

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: is as good as it gets, what you're saying. Alright. Hello. My name is Matt Foster, and I'm superintendent of Caledonia Central Supervisor Union. I wanna thank you all for the opportunity to speak with you about the proposed senate map and potential changes to Vermont's public education system. CCSU comprises the towns of Cabot, Danville, Marshfield, Plainfield, Peach Oath, Walden, Waterford, and Barton. We are five districts and seven schools, and all of our schools are very rural. Our SU touches the central part of the state to the South. We touch New Hampshire to the East and make up a good portion of the NEK. Three of our districts are grades pre k through 12. Two of our districts, Peacham, is a pre k through six, and Caledonia Cooperative District is a pre k through eight. These two school districts do not have a high school who's choice for their students. Our SU was put together resulting of Act 46. The Cal co op district was created with Walden Waterford and Barnett and was placed in CCSU. Cabin and Twinfield had their SU merged with CCSU. This merger resulted in several teacher and support staff contracts being utilized by the various districts in our SU. I bring this up as a point of consideration as the legislature continues to work on how to bring districts together or to rearrange our state school districts, and that's used for the purpose of improved efficiency and money saving. I understand the clarity along the idea of trying to reduce the cost over time as opposed to just saying, hey, come on here, next we're not spending x dollar for an hour.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And hopefully create educational opportunity too.

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: That's for us. We will improve education outcomes for our students, which is right there. But I wanted to stop on the money saving piece because I understand what your folks intend to say and I agree, flattening that cost curve. So looking at the current Senate proposed map, I believe all of our districts are more hopeful than under the proposed map. Our Peach McCallico districts are thankful for the Senate's consideration of school choice for their secondary students. I think that all of our districts are appreciative of not being forced into mergers and require mergers if the state's goals have not been met. Seems a reasonable compromise. Reducing the SUs in districts by at least 50% sounds wonderful If the mergers can be completed in a thoughtful manner that results in efficiency, money savings, and increased achievement, instead of spent time spent on navigating the intricacies of merging communities contracts, which creates community strife, turmoil, and focus on many things non student related, which I'm sure you've heard this consideration. However, I want the Senate and the House to remember, how challenging and time consuming it has it was to navigate and complete the mergers under Act 46. Despite that effort, the state has not yet completed a formal study to measure Act 46 success. I know we had we had that person from Yale that looked into it for us, is great and I think helpful. One may consider the current state of Vermont's public education system as a result of Act 46, or at least in part, this was the state's last typical foundation. Either way, I do think it is important to consider Act 40 six's history as we try to improve current legislation to support public education. Last year, CCSU finally achieved one contract for support staff and one contract for certified staff, and that was a hallelujah, and oh my gosh, and how do we get there? That was wonderful. It really was. It was an accomplishment that did improve efficiency and made a streamlining decision because you didn't have to consider, oh, which school was this from? So therefore, we have to go with that particular historical contract or what. So it did. By getting to that point, finally, helped us. The way we were able to respond to teachers and support teachers and staff, as well as eventually have that impact on students more quickly that we were looking for. I can say just as there have been unanticipated challenges in negotiating a state wide contract to reduce health insurance costs, there have been many unanticipated challenges in reaching an agreement on these CCSU contracts. As the state considers consolidation of mergers, please note that the CCSU legacy contracts with the highest compensation did carry over to the newly ratified contracts. We did not save money on the salaries as a result of Act 26. There were other positive outcomes, believe, but salary cost reduction was not one of them. Salaries and compensation make up about 38% of our school budget. Sure. You're a people organization just as you are, so I'm sure you this makes sense. So ultimately, school consolidation improved the efficiency of increased salaries for our staff. I believe our staff are worth those increases. We definitely want to level playing field for our staff. It did not seem fair to have some staff earning lower salaries than their counterparts just down the road. I've also heard, but I also wanna say that, taxpayers are responsible for paying the salaries that result from act 36. I've heard that reducing the number of schools is the ultimate money saver that will result from act 73, and that makes sense. But we saw the recent vote results for closing to elementary schools nearby here fail. And if the state wants to close schools, the process for doing so must be meticulously laid out and a timeframe longer than what is being proposed must be provided to our communities of taxpayers. I think it's important not only to create a map to improve efficiency and reduce costs and enhance student achievement, but also to put in place a more thoroughly conceived process to execute plan that achieves these goals. In other words, you know, the details, right? That's where the devil goes. Act 46 taught me that competing contracts, community, resistance to school closures, salary variability, multiple lengths of the workday, and various ancillary insurance benefits provided by different districts will take longer than two years to complete contract negotiations, whether forced or voluntary. I applaud a simpler funding method for our communities and schools by changing the method and implementing the new funding formula while new contracts are still being negotiated will exacerbate an already challenging situation and negatively affect staff, in turn affecting our students' ability to learn. Please consider the implementation timeline or consider a hold arms provision for a longer transition period to make this switch to new school finance methods move her. When I worked in Illinois, had the opportunity to work in school districts with enrollments ranging from 12,000 students to 21,000 students. In the larger suburban school district,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we were large enough to

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: run our own specialized instructional programs for students with needs that occur with less frequency. The same district with 21,000 students was also a member of a special education BOCES. This was a benefit to us in many ways. I think that BOCES can be part of the solution to improving education for our students in general and particularly for students with special education needs. The current L. Keithville of Vermont Public Education is holding back the development of additional BOCES. When I heard that question earlier today, why don't we have one BOCES? There's a lot of unknowns out there, start going down the path to try to develop those. You don't know that person's gonna be your next door neighbor, make a challenge right now. The recent report on the state of special education of Vermont outlined how our schools do a great job of providing inclusive education for many students with special education needs. I've seen it in the schools I've worked with. I I agree wholeheartedly with this. It is something to be proud of. But we struggle with more specialized or intensive supports. I do think that general smaller school districts struggle to provide more intensive support for many students with special education needs. As a result, many districts end up sending students to programs outside their own districts, which is costly. As more policies are developed, we can provide needed specialized support regionally, a model that is educationally sound and fiscally responsible. These larger districts that I worked for in Illinois were largely inexpensive. The cost per student were higher in the suburbs than in rural areas. Larger size does not mean less expensive. Much of the financial inequality in Illinois stems from reliance on local property taxes, which creates economic disparity and educational inequality. As complicated as our school funding method is, we're fortunate in Vermont that we structure our funding system to fight those financial inequalities. It's important to consider those things as we're moving forward to the foundation. Although I know you folks are considering that, I just want to get my hat off to you, were the state of Florida, always having that, you know, at their heart, or we're trying to figure out how do we how do we fund public education to meet the needs of all of our kids. Not only were the large districts expensive per student, but the community members were also less engaged. We are fortunate that in Vermont, you can still visit the transfer station, learn everything you want about any local government issues. One loses that connection with large organizations. SU's allowed for economies of scale and Ministry of Overhead to maintain more opportunities for local involvement in school boards, which will be reduced as districts get larger. And as has been mentioned earlier, I wholeheartedly agree that SUs are a form of BOCES already. In closing, the proposed Senate map has many positives. I applaud you for it. BOCES can alleviate many current challenges by increasing districts' capacities to serve students at sharing costs, but cannot be easily established in the current current climate of public education. Bigger does not mean cheaper. Act 46, how large impact on Vermont public education, and I learned that one should lengthen timelines to allow for mergers and consolidation. Expect unanticipated variables to delay progress and increase costs. Expect salaries and benefits to go up and up down. And I appreciate your thoughts, though, that looking at trying to flatten that curve. You guys would go for it, and I appreciate that, but I just wanted to be able to share what my recent experiences are with looking at negotiating contracts. As you provide an efficient, economical way to organize central office leadership and maintain community involvement through smaller desk groups, I'd also like to put in little push for Twinfield, Marshall and Plainfield. When we were going through the redistricting task force, they were putting in their their 2¢ for being included in more of a Montpelier centric area. And, so far, the various maps have not shown that. And I just wanted to

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I I know that you

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: folks have very responsive to feedback, and, I'm gonna be doing my due diligence serving the communities of Marshall and Plains, but that they do most of shopping down here. Their community is more connected to Montpelier area, so as you consider looking at those boundaries, please consider Marshall and Plainfield having more of a, I would say, center of focus towards this area of philanthropy. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Well, you for

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: your time.

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: Yes. And I appreciate these questions that I have answers to, so please.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay, here's what you may not.

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: That's right. So

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I'm not familiar with the layout of Caledonia Central Supervisory Union. Does St. Johnsbury exist on their borders or in size? On the borders. Okay. So do you have any thoughts on how to respect the contribution of the independent schools to the community and to the education landscape

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: given that you're in proximity to them and many folks who comment on their value don't necessarily have your experience. Sure, I appreciate that. There's a long history of Linden Institute and St. John's Great Cathy serving the communities there that surround that area, and I think that an SU will allow that support to continue with that direction or the traditions, you know. Logic does not always follow the education decisions. There's a lot of emotion attached to it. So if you have alumni associations or the history, that's where your dad or your grandfather or your mother's aunt's wife, and I think that could still be honored by having an SU and allowing for those communities to be able to still be served by those institutions.

[Speaker 0]: Sorry to interjecting, but we just lost our video. Please ask more questions.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: We have audio?

[Speaker 0]: Oh, we have audio still.

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Can we do that?

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Can we have audio?

[Speaker 0]: Yes. Okay. Okay. I will send it to you.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: It's not a visual base.

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Good one. We had no issue with my committee. Okay.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Other questions? Can I, just as a follow-up? Sure. So how would you, maybe even, how are independent schools now represented in the governance of an SU or how could they be represented in the governance of an SU? Because

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: they're semi autonomous really.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yeah, I get that.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So how do we, how do we

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: find that balance? Well I think that we've had some outreach recently over the last, well for me, this is my second year in Palo Alto. I've been in education here in Vermont for ten years. I've been in education since 1998, probably twenty years in administration in general. So I've been most recently having my experience just being an associate with those two institutions. The director's been reaching out, and they've been trying to build more opportunities to direct your own for both St. Johnsbury as well as Linden Institute, at least with my district or my SU, I can say, for sharing of information and how could one be able to work one out, realizing that's our kids that are attending those institutions, faculty would be more informed to be a part of that process. So I can say there's been outreach from both of those directors over the last few years of trying to prove that. I can also share that with the Paladoni Cooperative School District. They've had conversations with both St. John's Grand Communities to try and be able to see how they could even start to consider supporting special education students in more of a regional concept or idea support. So there has been some more outreach groups, they always say, and they tend to work together. But one of the things that have been somewhat of a hurdle for us is the uncertainty around where we're gonna be in the next couple of years. I don't wanna use that as an excuse, I'm just saying that that has definitely been, how much time you have to put into it, knowing where you're gonna be.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay, so if I could just clarify, so currently, and I know you know the answer, but I'm not quite 100% confident. Currently, the school board of a particular town represents the interest of They're gonna be able to yes. They're individual students who may be tuition to Correct. An independent school. Is there any mechanism you could foresee in the future where the independent school is represented in the potentially larger school board and some other mechanism other than, you know, that you got the public school.

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: Well, you're you're asking a question whether that I would like to see that happen. I'm not sure if the independent schools feel that way. Don't know, I can't speak We're for just searching. Yeah, I think the independent is the independent aide right there, right? Whereas a supervisor union, it's a yogi, we're definitely looking out to support each other's schools and how can we go ahead and move through. And I'm not saying they're not trying to best buy our students, but it would definitely have to be almost an extra, almost, I don't see exactly it's quasi, by the way. It'd be probably along the lines of just a working group or something along those lines.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: K. Thank you.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So did you have I I had another question yet from. Go ahead. I

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: had no more questions. Okay. Go ahead. So maybe relative more to Senator Heffernan's single district now, how do feel about school choice, maybe even on a statewide basis?

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: That'd be interesting. I think that under the current financial system, don't think that would be feasible just because you don't know where kids are to go from one year to the next. It just makes it too volatile. If there was some other situation where you knew you actually had the number of hours associated with them, and people are fighting for transportation, that might be a different conversation, but I think it makes it too variable and volatile from a year to year planning, not knowing where those kids are gonna be. So I think it would have to be something where you would say, You're gonna be here four years, or something along those lines. I'm just saying you'd have to have that kind of predictability for staffing and decision making planning. As a school district, know our kindergarteners are in first grade, first grade's on second grade. You would need to have some sort of balance.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: But if that tensor volatility and student assignments could be blamed out or mitigated in one manner or another, were you supportive of the kids? Without looking

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: at what that flattening out was, maybe I don't know the speed is, but like I can say the challenge right now and the unpredictability and variability from one year to the next not knowing the number of students you're going to be serving. Okay, thank you.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So for all three of you, going back to the question that I asked, so there's an agreement and you said it or I think maybe all three of you in some ways said it, that in some ways SUs are Yep, we are. And is there, you know, there's a green wish if the SC was at a certain scale, it would almost truly be the BOCES or

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: could be. And then on the

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: side would be one or another SU next door but so I had this call this morning and it was a person from I won't say which one but one of the proposed SUs going it's so big geographically and with a number of districts that you're gonna have that it's gonna be an impossible job for a superintendent to do. Part of the answer was well yeah it will it won't require more people than you have now between the two SUs that it's it'll just be organized differently under one but so I guess but at certain point and and Janie you made this point with me earlier before that if it gets too big you're a crack you lose some of what we're trying to aim and so as we're thinking about you know the number of SUs that really make sense and trying to get them to scale so they can be closer to their own, truly be closer to their own, there some, the ones that on the map that I've put forward, know, that are between point 504,000. So what do you think? It's not the size and number of students. Really do think They had seven weeks to pay that point,

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: but that's something that works. I realize. It's really the geography. And you know, when I came to Vermont, learned that you can't get there from here. Yeah. You know, and we all understand it when we live here. In the Northeast Kingdom, I think that one of those truly are largest. If you're looking for North Country, for example, that area, if you're looking at having about 1,000 square miles or something, I do that that seems a little obsessive to try to be able to meet the needs of people who's on the ground and be able to serve your communities well. I think that would be a challenge. So, what is that right size? I think that's one of our challenges here right now, is people looking at that individual geography and what the actual buildings are, and trying to predict what that future would look like if we actually have fewer facilities maybe because we have done some murders of that nature, but, you know, unfortunate that, my SU, when I took it on, they brought on, before I came on, an assistant superintendent to try to be able to help with that geographic distance. So as you do build these larger, if you were going to have those larger areas, I do think that you would have to have a consideration of, all right, I'm going to kind of have subdistricts or a larger units within those units or something like that. And I think that starts to play towards what Jamie was saying is it kept somewhat bureaucratic at that point. So so what know, Sydney, this is interesting.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's a good discussion because you're you're saying, you know, it that really has less to do with the number of students than it does geography and number of schools, perhaps. Yeah. Yeah. I've been a a principal of

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: a 100 kids, and I've been a principal of seven fifty kids. It's the same problems. They're just more of them. Alright? I mean, people are people. So I I really do think an example I think I can use here would be when I was a principal at Grasberry or even seeing how cabinet is run, you have more than one physical building, it's hard to react in the moment to be able to support the students and the kids crossing the campus. Right? So if you have an SU that's geographically sparse and spread out, it's hard for you to have the boots on the ground to be made, unless you do kind of start to have other regional feed hole filling that role. Yeah,

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: I mean, would agree, right? I think it's based on the geographical nature of the SU. And to me, it's like an hour and and change. To me, it makes sense. And the SU I serve right now is the second largest geographically and, you know, it's what it's East West, so it takes an hour and change, and the map you created, you know, I think you took geography into account, and so that you didn't actually add any larger travel distance for the SU. And, you know, Michael spoke to leadership. I believe that leadership requires you to be visible and present. And so as long as these SUs allow for leadership to continue to be visible and present and understand what's happening in their classrooms on a regular basis and is not reliant on middle management in order to do that, then I think you've hit the sweet spot. I also think it's amount of districts that are gonna be served by the SU. And you know, to me that, you know, when you start to get to more than, you know, to 12 district boards that you're serving and realizing that part of this is going to consolidate those districts, right? That part of your policy proposal is that you get the SUs in place, you get them up and running, and then you're working on voluntary mergers after that. Yeah. That that is doable.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Do you see a future where the larger district with a single superintendent has an associated school board, which is representative of the larger region, but the existing districts can still report into that larger school board. And the superintendent focuses on the larger school board and not the, you know, not the the micro school board, that that's kind of the solution that we're looking for. So communities can still exist to to float their issues, grievances up to the larger school board. That's all about governance. I think something that might be missing here is we don't have an organization chart anywhere but what we're really looking at and that's what we're really looking at is that the community can still be represented you know on a micro basis but they're reporting into a macro system that works directly with very professional qualified superintendents. I

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: think the worry that I have with that senator is is that if you if that district school board doesn't have a direct line and change of chain of communication directly to hold the superintendent accountable, that superintendent could quickly ignore the needs of that district. And I am now speaking not Jamie as a superintendent. I am speaking as JV as citizen and townsperson of Callis who voted to keep his school open in Callis, that when I looked at that district budget, I didn't see the cost drivers actually being that elementary school. That was the cost drivers to that district, so I voted to keep that elementary school open because I felt like there was other things that could be done to better address the budget concerns for Washington Central. And I worry with what you just said that if we lose the ability of that local district board to have that type of representation and just rely on that larger district board, that we can start to make decisions for those other, the smaller districts, as you said, that are going to harm those districts because the larger district board doesn't have that local perspective or representation. And that's the worry I have about a model that you're describing. I still want to make certain that that local, and again, we're talking about mergers and districts. So we're talking about now boards across multiple towns, but that are still serving those communities and that they're elected and and held to represent those communities. And so that's the word I had in that regard because Washington Central Unified District Board was really clear. They were gonna close callous. And I believe that, and again, I speak to this as a callus citizen to say, they were gonna close Callus to not change some things that they need to change at the middle high school, and if you check their budget, that is what's driving the increase in their tax rate right now. So let's do one, two, three,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: and we're we're happy to be behind. So

[Michael Livingston (Board Member, Sharon Elementary School; Member, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Well, just a quick question. I think for senator Weeks, the proposal that this larger board, what is he based on populations, like who's on that board?

[Speaker 0]: Or is that, yes, are you

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Well, my friend, that would be That's a surprise. Government operations committee who we gave a heads up two months ago to start looking at these scenarios. Frankly they haven't gotten off the line yet. Don't think what you envision. Okay. I envision that in the in the first go round that all the board, all the local district boards remain intact. And they report up to the larger book. Local school board, local local.

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: Like the SD board. Whatever,

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I'm not gonna use SU, SD. So the boards as they exist now, they still get elected, that you know perpetuates that represent the micro community and then you have the larger district whatever nature like previous you to put in. But there's a school board associated with a larger district, and those smaller districts report in to ensure that the communities are still represented. So you don't have, let's say, larger district, hypothetically, 10 school board members. That those 10 school board members have geographic responsibility in different parts of that region and you maintain that so that everybody feels the sense of democracy they report into a smaller school board.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's, I see a head over here.

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: That is a supervisory union, Senator. Right. What you're describing. And if, and as Michael described it, so, and we're supportive of exactly what you said. And that this note, supervisory unions are already within statute charged to oversee curriculum, to oversee special education services. And so that larger SU board is doing exactly what you're but they are made up of appointments from those district boards. So I absolutely concur with you. I think what you're describing makes total sense, and that's why I think that that supervisory union governance structure is so critical in order to do exactly what you just said. And if you were to look at our SU agendas, and I can send them to you, you will see that how we report to each one of those districts in regards to our progress monitoring reports on student data around academic achievement and social emotional achievement. Those goals are actually set at the SU level. That's where the strategic plan is. And every one of the principals in our SU report out the progress monitoring reports on those ends each month, and you'll see the agendas look very similar. Senator Heffernan?

[Speaker 0]: I'm not gonna add into the picture. Okay.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Williams? No, okay. So one question I have is, one thing I know about wards is that they meet too often. They

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: all want

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to be, I'm not talking school boards, I'm talking about wards. They tend to want to meet too often and official meeting on the organization has fewer board meetings than more. I think school boards tend to meet, they all tend to meet monthly. Is that necessary, or could they, or could we set the system up so they're done every other month? Is there any reason they, that it really makes sense to meet monthly? I

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: think monthly works good in regards to holding the administration accountable or anybody with In regards to making progress on their strategic plan. And so what I would say to you though is that does a non operating district need to be here every month? Absolutely not. But an operating district that's responsible for students that we are educating, they do. And what I think we have right now in regards to efficiency or a lack of efficiencies, we actually have boards meeting twice a month. Like I had a colleague say to me that's a superintendent of an SD, I don't know how you do it with six districts. And I said, Well, my district boards meet once a month. They meet, they piggyback. So one board starts at 05:30 and their meeting goes to six and sorry, goes starts at 05:30 and goes to seven, and then another board starts at 06:30 and they go to eight, and we set up the agenda that I'm on in person with one board at the start and then I join virtually with the other board and I flip in regards to me being in person each month. But they're meeting once a month and then committees, all the committees just like Senator Weeks said, those are all at the SU level. The district boards do not have additional committees. So our policy committee is at the SU level. Our negotiation committee is at the SU level. So it's not each district's having to have on top of that multiple committees. So what you'd see in the SU is that we have our district boards, we have a couple committees, Superintendent Evaluation Committee, again, is one. And then we don't have things like a transportation committee in each district. And so if you look at the actual boards and committees on an SD page versus my SU page, I actually think you'd see that I'm about the same amount of nights a week as a lot of superintendents within SDs. They're just, they're not setting up their governance in efficient way.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Matt, do you want to add to that?

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: Yeah, I support a lot of what Jamie was saying with regards to holding administration accountable with regards to progress of future plans, level, academic or social emotional growth, things of that nature. But I think you can also do that with reports. So I do think that you could, you do not have to tie your hands with a monthly meeting. You can always call a special meeting if you need to. RSU only this year decided to add a couple more meetings. They didn't meet every month, but at the district level, there are probably a couple of meetings a year that you can say, you know, we could probably roll this over, and say, boy, this is gonna be a real short meeting if we have those real short meetings. Couldn't you have that flexibility? Yes, because if you do need a meet, you're good to meet.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Do you have that flexibility? Do they have the opportunity by statute of physicality?

[Jamie Kinnarney (Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union)]: Well, a good question. But by statutes, they're supposed to meet.

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: Yes, and when we do a reorganization here shortly, we're gonna say what's our standard meeting time and what night and things of that nature, and I appreciate you saying, Jamie, yeah, it's in there in statute.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yeah, okay.

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: Some flexibilities there might be good.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: That's why I'm working on

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: it here, because we have to stop, but I really take in and accept the notion of you know if you get too large it becomes bureaucratic and won't be running over the rest of term of commerce but what about the notion of if you really have a large supervisory union and assistant who you hire and who like to like take responsibility for the Southern end.

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: That's what I do.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You do, you have yours, you have somebody who Yep, Doctor. Mike You purchased some, okay, good.

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: Okay, And that was, like I said, inherited, because Horthucker, who I replaced, when he was hired and they had merged a couple of SUs into CCSU, they said, Hey, we'd like to provide you with assistance. I no. No. I got this. He he did his time, and then towards the end, he's like, I was wrong. He he really needed to have, you know, Houston. We implemented it, and Mike and I, we invited the schools. We still call them our schools. Yep. But he's got standard weekly meetings with all of his principals. I've got standard weekly meetings with my principals, and I was just thinking last week, do I wanna keep it next year? So that's what we do.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Great. Thank you. That was really Appreciate your

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: your listening and your question. Yeah. Always. Thank you. I

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: always take a

[Matt Foster (Superintendent, Caledonia Central Supervisory Union)]: day, sir. You. Don't take a break until

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: 03:10. Right? Then we have a little something. We've got that system up front and running about. So it's got a whole another over May I

[Speaker 0]: the reason