Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're live.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So our education ready is back after a short break on April 21. We have with us, counselor at St. James, and we're continuing first with her with her the time she has with us to finish walk through her proportions of nine fifty five and then we're going to switch to the chronic absenteeism bill and actually start on that. And we have with that until four. You know, we're gonna talk about section

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's St. James Office of Legislative Counsel. I believe we left off on section 21A.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And by the way, we've had the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, so you should have now the house passed version with all of the various amendments incorporated into one document. So that would be page 49, line 11. So section 21A is an amendment to 16 BSA eight twenty nine, which is the Pre Canarian Education Statute. It adds a new subdivision, subsection D, which is the tuition subsection. And it requires on line 16, that as part of the data reporting process required pursuant to the student leading section in the education finance chapter, A district of residence shall also report annually to AALI the number of hours of pre K education received by each pre K child for whom it has provided pre kindergarten education. Veronica's behalf is paid tuition pursuant to this section. So, it's data reporting of our government to start collecting the number of hours that pre K kiddos are actually receiving per public funding. And then on page 60.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: For public funding, is Oh, you're doing via public funding.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Via public funding. Okay. Okay. Yep.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And page 50, we're staying in the same section, eight twenty nine, the preconerrant statute, adding to subdivision 10 of subsection E, which is the rules subsection, adding Building Bright Futures as one of the entities responsible along with AOE and DCF to establish a system for monitoring Pre K. And then on page 50, line 15, section 22. This is an amendment to section 4,010, subsections D of Title 16. This is the statute in Title 16 where all of your student waits appear. And this is a requirement to collect weighting data on tuition to students. So each school district shall annually report to AOE by a date established by the agency the information needed in order for the agency to compute the weighting categories under subsection B of this section for all students. And in order to fulfill this obligation, a school district that pays public tuition on behalf of a resident student to a public school in another school district, an approved independent school, an out of state school, or a pre qualified private pre K education provider. Current law just says that school districts may request waiting data and this bill changes it to shall require each resident student in pre K through grade 12 on whose behalf the district pays tuition to complete a form or forms developed by the agency in order to obtain the information needed in order for the agency to compute weighting categories for tuition students.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And then

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the form is required to be included with any residency verification forms and requests for public tuition funding forms required by a school district.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So who fills out the form? The student.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or the family.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: They don't

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's there is no recourse. So, new reader assistance heading, special education funding. Section 23 on page 51, line 16, is largely legislative intent. So, subsection A is legislative intent to ensure that Vermont complies with federal maintenance of effort requirements and any education funding reform. Do you all have an understanding of what maintenance of effort means? Yeah. I'm seeing some yeses and some nos. No,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: so go ahead.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So generally speaking, I'm not an expert in this, but generally speaking, our federal special education funding is tied to how much we're spending at a state level. And we are required, each state is required to spend the same amount year over year at a district level and at a state level. We call that the maintenance of effort requirement. And so, this is essentially saying, and that is like a very general, not expert way of framing maintenance of effort. There's more nuance. But this is saying that it is your intent that any education funding reform efforts you take will ensure that you're complying with those federal maintenance of effort requirements. So, nothing implementation of Act 73 shall be construed to prevent a reduction in state or local funding for special education and related services in a manner that would violate maintenance of effort requirements under ITEA. And then there's a whole lot more, not a whole lot more, the rest of the section is also legislative intent. So, is the intent of the general assembly that the state shall maintain an education funding structure in which general education is funded through a formula based mechanism established by law and special education is funded through a supplemental reimbursement weighted student count or grant model that reflects eligible special education costs and preserves compliance with federal and the member requirements. I'm on page 52, line 13. It is the intent of the general assembly, the implementation of act 73 or any future education funding shall not limit the right of students with due diligence to a free appropriate education, including access to individualized services in the least restrictive environment as required by law. Subsection D prohibits a school district from implementing programmatic reduction, staffing changes or budgetary actions that disproportionately affect students with disabilities or impair the district's ability to meet if obligations to provide FAPE. I'm on page 53, line three, subsection E, school districts shall assess and document the impact of the significant programming changes on students with disabilities in accordance with guidance issued by AOE. And then subsection F on page 53, line six requires AOE to issue that guidance to ensure school districts implement Act 73 in a manner consistent with this section and with federal special education requirements. New Reader Assistance heading on page 53, line 11, tuition. Section 24 amends section eight twenty eight, which is the section in Title 16 that tells school districts what types of educational programs are eligible to receive public tuition. So, three asterisks represent current law. So, not making any changes to current law as far, you know, within the statute for work. This bill adds a new subsection to the end of the statute, which reads, A school eligible to receive tuition pursuant to this section shall be prohibited from requiring tuition or fees of any kind from a student attending the school according to the provisions of this chapter. So, student attending on public tuition above the amount of tuition paid by ascending school district pursuant to Section eight twenty three of this chapter. This section, Section 24, would not take effect until the foundation formula takes effect. It has the same contingencies in this bill that the foundation formula has. And so this reference to Section eight twenty three on line 18 would be tuition under the foundation formula, which is the base plus weeks following the student to whatever school, whatever the receiving school is.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So when we say a school helped to receive tuition, that would be a combination of independent schools and bonus schools to receive tuition students. Correct. And for a public school, public school could still utilize fees?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, so subdivision E1, says no school that is eligible to receive tuition can charge a tuition student tuition or fees above the tuition amount. And then subdivision two says, a public school located in Vermont that receives tuition pursuant to this chapter is prohibited from charging any student attending the school a fee of any kind above the amount of tuition paid by a standing school district, regardless of whether the student is a resident student or a tuition student. So, if the public school receives tuition students, they have to treat all of the students in the school the same. So, if they can't charge a fee to the students they're receiving on tuition, they also can't charge a fee to their resident students who are attending the school because they live there.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So this means like a fee for a

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Fees of any kind is not defined, but I would imagine, yes. And again, this section would not take effect until the foundation formula takes effect, stand contingencies. Section 24A is a piece of legislative intent that says just that, that it is the intent of the general assembly, that the prohibition we just walked through in section 24, which prohibits a receiving school from requiring tuition or fees of any kind beyond tuition, shall take effect at the same time the foundation formula and other tax changes envisioned in those acts shall take effect provided that any applicable contingency is met. Section 24A is essentially explaining the effective date.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So a public school that doesn't have any tuition students could charge fees or like a French trip?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The way this is written, if the public school located in Vermont, that receives tuition. It doesn't say eligible to receive. So I would say under this reading, yes.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, okay. But if the school has Grand Isle or whatever, public school, they then can charge any fees for the French equivalent, okay? Just to make sure I understand it. Points down, makes any sense. Yes. Well,

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: just want to make sure that we're clarifying or distinguishing the definition of fee versus expenses. I mean, if you're organizing a trip to France, you you've got your plane tickets that you've to pay for, your hotels for the kids, those side, I would consider those as fees, those are the expenses, but I mean, is there a difference?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think this is really a question for the sponsors of the bill, for your colleagues in the house, because I feel uncomfortable speaking to their intent behind this section. I will say that debate on the floor and in committee was that fees would include things like field trip fees, uniform fees, sports facility fees, etcetera, regardless of whether it's an independent school or a public school. The term fee is not defined anywhere.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Okay. That was gonna be the next one. Thank you. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so, new Reader Assistant heading on page 54, line 12, Union School District Study Committee budgets. Section 25 amends 16 BSA Section seven zero seven, which is in Chapter 11, which is our Union School District chapter, governance chapter. This is the statute that governs study committees, so the study committee to form a new union school district, how they set their budget and whether they need voter approval. So under current law, you can see on line 16, that if a proposed budget for a study committee exceeds $50,000 the study committee have to get voter approval from all of the electorate of the districts that are participating on the study committees. This section bumps that threshold requiring voter approval from 50,000 to 500,000, and that's all that this section 25 does.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: This relates to formation of districts?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Union school districts.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Good.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, readers of the 10, I'm on page 57, line 17, rule making forms of reports. There's a series of rule making requirements we're about to walk through. Section 26, small, it's really just small and sparse schools. Going on to page 58, line one, the State Board of Education shall, unless extended by LCAR, adopt updates to the Education Quality Standards rules to establish criteria for identifying schools as small by necessity or sparse by necessity or both on or before 03/31/2027. Such rules shall be consistent with the work of the Small and Sparse School Committee of the State Board of Education and the recommendations of the committee dated 12/17/2025. So last year in Act 73, the legislature created the Small and Sparse Schools Grant. Right now, under our current finance system, sparsity and small schools, I believe, are weighted. And Act 73, changing to the foundation formula, moves that out of a weighting category into a categorical aid grant. But Act 73 did not establish criteria for what a small or sparse school by necessity means. So, you charged the state board with coming up with recommendations for those determinations. Those recommendations were contained in the report referenced on line eight, dated 12/17/2025. So, this section is asking the State Board to amend the education quality standards, create criteria for identifying schools as small by necessity or sparse by necessity or both, and that those updates need to be consistent with the work and recommendations they've already made. Section 27, Intra District Budgeting. Now we're charging the agency of education, unless extended by LCAR, to adopt updates to the district quality standards, to establish criteria for inter district budgeting on or before 03/31/2027. The criteria shall provide guidelines for inter district budgeting that ensure resources are allocated across schools within each district in a way that supports the state's goal that all Vermont children will be afforded educational opportunities that are substantially equal in quality enable them to achieve or exceed the education quality standards approved by the state board. Section 27A is an amendment to section seven of Act 183 from 2024. That was twenty twenty four's yield bill, which required section seven of the yield bill in 2024 required the agency of education to update district quality standards to include recommended reserve fund accounts. That work has not been completed yet. And so, this section 27A of H. Nine fifty five amends the twenty twenty four secondtion seven to set a deadline of 03/31/2027. It charges the agency of education to work in collaboration with FASBO, the Superintendent's Association and the School Board's Association and their rulemaking. And then it adds specificity to what the rules need to entail. So, page 59, line 13, the rules need to prescribe minimum and maximum balance levels for a reserve fund, taking into consideration revenue predictability and expenditure volatility, exposure to significant one time expenses and impact on credit ratings, specify acceptable conditions that warrant use of the reserve fund and period within which funds may be used, establish best practices for replenishing a depleted reserve fund, including the period over which the reserve fund should be replenished, define appropriate accounting terms to facilitate data consistency and improve data quality across the state, and identify conditions that may justify deviation from any broadly applicable standards adopted pursuant to this section.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So there are reserve funds now. Is it just really just trying to add in the Vermont Association of School Business Officials and Superintendents and School of Origin to criteria for the reserve fund?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, so, Act 183 charged the agency with coming up with, recommended reserve fund account standards, and that work hasn't been done yet. And so, what this bill is doing is saying, you gotta finish that work. And now you have to collaborate with these folks. And now we're actually providing you with more specificity on what those reserve fund account standard rules need to include.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on page 60, section 27B, school transportation grants report. This is just a report back. Everything in here is a report back. So on and before December 1 year, AOE shall submit a written report to the education and transportation committees and the money committee regarding school transportation. School districts are required to comply with requests from the agency to assist data collections necessary to complete the reporting requirements and inspections. The subdivision one of this section is all about information coming to you. And then subdivision two, which we'll walk through next, is about recommendations. The subdivision one requires the report to include information on the following. The current landscape of education transportation for each school district, including the grades offered by the student district, the grades for which the school district provides transportation, whether the vehicles used to provide students with transportation are owned or leased, whether the school district relies on public transportation to provide education transportation to its resident students, and if so, costs borne by all parties. And then the method by which resident students arrive to and leave from each school, the resident students attend, regardless of whether it is the school operated by the district or a receiving school not operated by the district. Such as whether students rely on school district provided transportation, rely on school district provided transportation, receiving school provided transportation, or transportation provided or arranged by a resident family, as well as whether there is any district reimbursement to resident families to privately incurred expenses related to student transportation. That's a lot of worry. My understanding is that this is supposed to be, tell us how your kiddos get to school. Because transportation is not required to be provided. So what are all the ways that kids get to school and what are the costs associated with it? And then also information on bus driver pay and benefits. Information on the aggregate cost of the current education transportation system on a per school district basis, including the total transportation grant award from the state, the total local funds spent on transportation, per mile expenditures for transportation to and from CTE programming, transportation costs associated with the requirements of the McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act, transportation costs associated with extraordinary special education expenditures, and transportation costs associated with IEPs. That's all the information you should be getting. Now, on page six, two, line one, subdivision two is asking for recommendations. So, the report shall also include recommendations regarding the geographic radius around a school within which a school district shall not be required to provide transportation for both urban and rural schools. Definitions for the terms distant students and safe walking routes. How regionalized transportation services may work under a seesaw model, including with a seesaw serving as the fiscal agent or contract, as well as information regarding the availability of transportation vendors in the seesaw regions created in the fact. How co curricular and after school travel could be included in a district's transportation services and what consistent standards should be proposed for such service statewide. Whether a weighted sparsity categorical grant or a per mile reimbursement model would be more beneficial to districts or CSIS under a foundation formula, and what the approximate difference in cost would be as compared to the current funding system, legislative updates to the statute that governs reimbursement for transportation expenditures and any related rules, and how to ensure a student who attends a CTE center other than the student's signed regional CTE center due to enrollment constraints, program availability, or some other barrier has access to transportation to the same extent as students attending an assigned CTE center and the costs associated with any such recommendations. So a whole lot of information recommendations related to education transportation. CTE. Page 63, line five, section 27C. Remember, we're having, we amended section 4,010, subsection C, entitled 16, to have tuition students fill out forms related to weighting categories. This is asking AOE to develop that form. So, or before September 1, AOE, consultation with school business officials, shall develop a student profile form to be used by school districts to collect the necessary information in order for the agency to compute the weighting categories under 16 BSA, section 4,010, and subsection B for students at pre K through grade 12 on whose behalf the district pays tuition. And then the student profile form shall be fully acceptable to all Vermont families in paper and in paper and electronically. And then the last

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And I assume we don't do that now.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do what now?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The form? This is computing. Collect information for computing away. The

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: school districts that operate schools collect that information for their resident students. But if the student is leaving the school district to attend a receiving school outside the district, whether it's a public school or an independent school, it doesn't seem to be crystal clear that that waiting information is coming back to the school district. And so this is an effort to make it clear, an avenue to get that information. Current law just says school districts may request this information, it doesn't say they have to. Section twenty seventeen on page 63, I think this is the last bit of rulemaking. The State Board of Education is required to update the length of school day and year rules. There is a rule called length of school day and year. Those are state board rules. The section is asking them to update those rules on or before 03/31/2027, unless extended by LCAR. To update the criteria for the length of the school day for each grade, Pre K through grade 12, consistent with the definition of school day that this bill adds and that we're gonna walk through when we get to that section. Page 64, new readers in settings, small and small schools. This is a concept that we are going to see over and over again on our education transformation journey this year and far into the future. So, when we're making, I'm just talking generally about the drafting convention here. When we wanna make changes to law that has not yet been enacted, there's no easy way to do that. You can't go into the former act and make amendments. Section 28 on page 64, line two, repeals section 37 from Act 73, which is the Small and Sparse Schools Support Grant statute. And then section 29 reenacts it with some changes. And so the only changes to the small schools, sparse schools grants from what was passed in Act 73 is that on on line 12, page 64, Act 73 had the State Board of Education making a determination on an annual basis on whether a school is small by necessity. Now we have AOE making that determination and that determination needs to be made consistent with the state board rules that you've asked them to do in a previous section. That's the only change.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: That was taken out of Act 72 '73, the sparse and small sabotage.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is in large part directly out of Act 73, and the only because this law hasn't taken effect yet, I had to repeal what you did in Act 73, and then we have to redo it all over again here. But the only changes between this bill and Act 73 are two categories. One, it's no longer the state board making that determination, it's the agency. And then the other change, which is kind of incorporated throughout, is making it clear by adding here the word public or the term operated by the school district to make it clear that this grant is only applied to public schools. Otherwise, the grant itself and the criteria in here have not changed at all from Act 73. But every time you want to go in and make a change to this statute, we're going to have to keep repealing it and reenacting it because it hasn't gone into effect yet.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So what is the practical effect of this?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Of what? The changes made in H-nine 55 or the grant program itself?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Let's talk about the grant program first. I can't think of it, know what it's I'm thinking about the difference, what you said about tuition students.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, this is always, the small schools and scarce schools for grants have always been only for when I say always, I mean, seventy three years passed, have always been only for public school. They're not grants that are given to independent schools, and it's because it's about the school, not the students.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so, as we reopening this statute, there was a desire to just make that clear in case there was any confusion, and so the word public was added in a few places, and then school operated by the school district was also added in a few places. But, as it was passed in Act 73, it also only applied to public schools. Okay, so we're gonna go to page 66, section 29A. This is an amendment to section 11 in title 16, which is the master definition list for all of title 16. You're adding several definitions here. So just adding them right onto the end of the statute. So a definition for average class size, which means the total number of students enrolled across all classes included in a grade band or content area as applicable, divided by the total number of individual classes contained in a grade band or content area as applicable, calculated separately for each school in each grade band or content area as specified in subdivision 165 A9 of this title, which is the class size minimums section. Class is defined as a group of students taught by a single teacher or team of teachers organized for instruction in specific subjects or grade level for a defined period during the regular school day. Each course section shall be counted as a separate class and a class with more than one teacher of record shall be counted as a single class. Content areas is defined as a grouping of courses aligned to a single educator endorsement area as defined by the Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators on page 67. Full time equivalent class means the proportion of instructional time relative to a full school year. School means a public or independent educational institution with assigned staff, including teachers and administrators that serves students within a dedicated building and that is identified by a unique state school identification number assigned by the National Center for Education Statistics. School day means the hours between the latest time at which a student may arrive at school and not be considered late and the time a student is dismissed from school on a student attendance day. Student means a pupil enrolled in and assigned to a school as of October 1, and teacher of record meets the educator primarily responsible for delivering instruction, assessing student learning, and assigning grades for a class as designated in a school district's student information system. That is all I am responsible for in H-nine 55.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Is it going to

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: be possible to have ways and beams come in here and explain why they added a 100 babies to the concept? Well, we're gonna yes.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But we're gonna we're also gonna be in a

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: joint hearing tomorrow. I I get that. But that's that's JFO briefing. It's not both ways and means. Well, I'd like to understand why the sponsors have done all these changes made a 100 pages of changes. Oh, sure. Fair enough. We'll we'll do that

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: as well. But we gotta to we'll we'll actually have the budget council.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Not a understand. Understand. That does

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: a great job. I understand. We're gonna do a well for Yeah,

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: we got three weeks left. Yes. We got 140 pages, 100 of which are right out of ways and means. We don't know what they're driving for. That's my fundamental problem. And I love Beth's work, and I think it's a good use of time. But without knowing why, this group, this other committee, put all this detail in here, I'm completely lost. I don't know where the heck this is going. And so in in their defense and their support, an hour of time to just have them explain to us what are they doing? Where are they going?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We can get the we we will get this once our the reporter of the various sanctions. Thanks. Yeah. So who who will let counsel get

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: your stop here, who picks up for the rest of you?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's Kirby for the, Kirby, for the tax sections and John for the education finance sections. So similar to what I imagine you all will do, right? The education committees have their territory and the money committees have their territory. Nine fifty five was a committee bill. And so, as introduced, the education committee just did education policy, and then it went to ways and means and they made changes in their area of expertise, which was tax and finance.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And some of this, we will see, actually has nothing to do with education. And so that'll be the the more of the recent needs to be well, maybe some children's in there. And then some of this, the John's sections have to do with long as you go to school infrastructure, I think, and so we need to hear that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it pushes out a lot of financing changes, which pushes out a lot of education policy. It's an education policy change to the timeline.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, yeah, some of this actually has little to do with education, but what's new.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That I teach the literature.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think we would see tend not to but John's new. Yes. Okay, why don't we We have you until 04:30. Let's take advantage of it. And shift to Well, I guess, I think there's we as we if we do a markup, we're gonna find the resections that we have some policies, we have some choices to make. So if we're we're thinking about this as a markup exercise, I think the only way to do it is to start on page one and go through this section or subsection one at a time. First, the first section is is 11, well, section one and then the sub one absence cases too. A lot of this, a lot of this, you're gonna call some testimony that's had.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want me to share my screen for this? It looks like you're all working hands down, so I just want to do what's most helpful.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I always work on our copy. Okay. So absence means a student who, for at least half of the school day when schools open, not physically, is not physically, oh, is, yes, not physically on school grounds or who is not receiving or attending educational curriculum or athletic services or programming elsewhere pursuant to the program or plan for that by. Are we, I guess not how to put it as, are we okay with one? Anybody have anything to Okay. My question, do these definitions already exist? And if Yes. Help us with that?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. Yeah. That's all new law.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: There is no truancy?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: There's no legislation?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is. This this, section one amends subchapter three, the compulsory attendance section, which is which does exist. The subchapter three does not have a definition section. So all of these definitions are new to Title 16. Okay,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: so we're trying to define the term absence, what does it mean? Half a day for no for no good reason.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yep. I I don't have any problems with any of these definitions until we get down to the next the the second page. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm gonna write we're gonna mark okay next to one unless it really has anything to say. It's fine. K.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Think this said new. Oh. No. It's still as? We haven't touched it.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's past. Two, chronic absenteeism. Student who is absent for any reason for 10% or more of a district's independent schools for one year. Now, this says, regardless of whether the absences are considered excused or unexcused, this goes to that point that we heard, that argument that the real issue is instructional days not to excuse the high school's absence, we've had some contrabelling testimony to us.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Wanting us to preserve the no sure excused absence.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, even the people who wanted us to preserve excused absence pointed out that using suspension as a tool with kids who using suspension as a tool that makes kids more chronically absent should not they they would not philosophically want that to be considered excused. So I just worry this like, did we need Isn't suspension these days almost always in house suspension? It says excused absences shall include days of in or out of school suspension.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh, you're I was I'm sorry.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I was still on two.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is two.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. That's that's three. Oh, it's three. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So chronic absenteeism is a student who is absent for any reason where 10% of orbit districts or group independence meets student attendance days for their school year, regardless of whether the absences are considered excused or high

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: school. It's just that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, it matters. But It's

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: both, the whole question of us trying to define in statute what counts as an excused or unexcused absence. It's a it's a pretty big gushet. I I agree that the absenteeism, like, there should be a way to track all of the absences, whether they're considered excused or unexcused. And there should be categories so that we know what types of absences are we can track, like, the types of things that are keeping kids out of school, but using like, can we move away from using the language excused or unexcused in statute?

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yes. I think it's just a real basic definition. And we're gonna get into breaking it down right now. But we need to get these definitions out there. I think it's a pretty basic definition of what's an experience.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not sure if you understood the point I was making. No. You don't understand. Right. So at the end it says, regardless of whether the absences are carried, considered excused or unexcused. That's where we start

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: But it's still chronic if they're absent.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. But if we struck the last part of that sentence, it doesn't make a big difference. And that's where we start delineating between what's an excused or unexcused absence. So

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: your suggestion that would be that there are period after the

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yes. Year.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It says for any reason. So a student who was absent for any reason, I don't know why we need to start talking to them about excuse or unexcused.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think it's probably clarifying because the first question, if you put a period after the word year, people would say, well, about if it's excused? And even though it does say any reason, I can see that there might be confusion.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is there anything else? I would get rid

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: of any reason why not? It just means students who are absent, or 10% or more of the history. Not for any boosters.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, at the very basic level, is redundant. It says it twice, but the bigger point to me is that almost everybody said it it has value judgment to to say excused or unexcused. And nobody nobody gave us, like, a suggestion, but I'm uncomfortable

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: with Where

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we land. Like, I don't know where we landed on what's considered excused or unexcused.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, actually, in this sentence, it doesn't fathom.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But it starts the conversation about what's excused or unexcused. So I'd rather take out any reference to what's excused or unexcused in the bill.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Alright. Well, let's note that as a possibility. Well, if we

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: have no definition now, we have we're not introducing a definition.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There are two definitions later on.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, I know. That's what I'm saying.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Do you agree with keeping those in or No.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because every section from now on talks about excused or excused to ask because it's in what they are and what they are not, and we got conflicting testimony on that. And I more on the side of People said it would be nice if we had some standardization, but they also all did not agree on what should you consider excused or anything.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So we all did it both. I think the way it's written, Zan puts the definitions

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: for chronic absenteeism. There's a difference between chronic absenteeism and truancy the So right chronic absenteeism is with a group of certain helping rates of absenteeism at various schools, I think.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, I'll take your comment and I'll submit that I don't understand why there's a chronic absenteeism definition and a truancy definition. I think

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the truancy applies to a single shy hug. Unexcuse. Chronic absenteeism. Well, it's not,

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: so chronic absenteeism has nothing to do with an individual student who has to do

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: with a body? Think so. Do you have anything to add?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So my understanding is that chronic absenteeism has the definition that it has, which is different than truancy. Truancy is a student who accumulates 20 or more unexcused absences, so it's just unexcused, not. And chronic absenteeism, as defined in the bill as introduced, is both excused or unexcused. So there's one difference. Chronic absenteeism is related to one school year. Truancy is over either one school year or over 175 consecutive student attendance days. Truancy triggers the potential for criminal or child welfare action. Chronic absenteeism is tied to page five, line 18, section eleven twenty four, which is new, in the agency being tasked with coming up with a model policy to address chronic absenteeism.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So it's more back row than micro as it relates to the chronic absenteeism?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The policy? The policy is what it is. It is to A model policy on the prevention of chronic absenteeism and truancy, which shall include specific provisions for how to address absence of a child with a disability and related to hate, neglect, and bullying absences. And then school districts are required to adopt that policy. There is no legal consequence for being chronically absent, but there is a legal consequence for deterrant.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Hashim, that's okay enough.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah, I think this might be a question for Senator Ram Hinsdale, but if we are to get rid of these definitions, I read it as having an impact on the failure to attend piece in 11.6 and ruinsy piece on the next page on page eight. So I'm not so if if we get rid of the definitions and it also, by proxy, gets rid of some of the policies that are in there or we would have to reword it. Well,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so what So it tries to then say on page seven that that they're they're but essentially, they're not as concerned with chronic absentee as if that involves excused absences. They're more concerned with 20 or more unexcused absences. And then it goes on to talk about what's excused or not excused. So I just had hoped we'd do more work. I think that was the biggest section where there was a lot of judgment that exists about what's considered excused or unexcused, and we got conflicting, but I think compelling reasons to look into that more, and I thought we were gonna look at new language.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Where would that language come from?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I don't know. Did none of them send us anything to follow-up about that? Because the second group even said that they they think it's concerning to consider suspension and excused absence. So I'm just, like, losing I was compelled by their overall concerns, and and I just don't know if anybody was gonna sort of give us suggestions.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Like, I I think, yeah, we should clarify so that, you know, a student who's out sick with a serious illness for twenty five days, you know, excused absence, they shouldn't be getting a notice that they may be getting suspended. But, you know, the situations where a student is just not going to school because they don't want go to school anymore for whatever reasons. And it's, I mean, how would that, how would we address that? If we get rid of the definitions of excuse or person unexcused.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Somebody has to identify that it's a chronic absentee. Yeah. And why? Why is is is there so much say?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, so then there are, like, reasons that you may be excused, and many of them also said the laundry list might not have to be that helpful. I wonder if if Daphne could email Nick Connor and I'm forgetting the names of the people from from Royal County, but I I thought we were gonna make changes to the bill based on their feedback.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think we just had a bunch of testimony. I think there was any sense they were gonna be, well, we're not gonna make changes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I I was hoping we'd make some changes.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. I think we should keep in mind that this bill is by understanding, I think, all the testimony is that it's real intent. None of the intent is to compute it. Okay. The intent is to draw kids back at the stools and just sometimes needing a lever to do that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I could just email Nick Connor. I just was trying to include the other folks. I don't know if you could send me their email addresses. It's optimal. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So let's keep going then and say that the excuse and unexcused absences we have to we have to put the put the look on.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Before we close the page again, if I can ask Beth, page one line 10% of the attendance days, do they ever work out the math on that to see how close it is to the truancy days, the 20 or more?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Schools are required to be in session for at least 175 student attendance days so that would be assuming it's 175, that would be like five. That's only math how capable of doing.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay. Again, I again, I don't because I thought that tour would relatively close. I I still don't understand why we have two different definitions from the same issue. One is for a year, one is for Percent. One school day, one is for the past 175. They're so close. Twenty days versus seventeen days. I I just don't get it.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So so, Beth, you wouldn't say that they relate to paid. You said the sections they relate to. I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the the biggest difference to me, and I will

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: say

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that the house made several changes to the language as they received it, but this is largely language put forward by the agency. And so to the extent that there are questions about policy choices in there, they would probably be your best witnesses. The big difference between chronic absenteeism and truancy is the legal consequences. There is It's a time frame. That is a policy question that I can't Completely speak

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: fair. There's a tiny difference in time frame or there is a difference in time frame. I'm not defending it, but there is because chronic absenteeism relates to a single school year versus truancy. I get that. Don't see the reason. I don't know about I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think what's also getting a little locked is chronic absenteeism can be excused or unexcused and truancy is only unexcused absences.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That that is a big difference.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: If you remove chronic, you know, it seems like there's. Which is.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: To be true. Things get triggered when they're true. Nothing gets triggered when they're

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So, I don't know. I'll take like four steps backwards and go up. I'm not sure why we're even dealing with excused absences as part of any form

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: of it. You know, that's

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: been adjudicated by the school, been adjudicated with the parents, student. Why is it even a fact? Why why is the definition of chronic absenteeism triggered by excused absences? Unless there's another problem for treatment. Which it caused. Yeah,

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: mean I think Going to France. That's not a problem.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: No. There's another problem. Could be a I wanna get on the table. Could be a physical ailment. I think it's psychological ailment.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: I think if you look at page four and five, some of those Right. Issues are described. You just find it in school last week's maybe a news section. And go

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: first in it to come back to that. So

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: where were where were you

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: involved from? I I was just saying I think some of the points that that Senator Lisa trying to raise are described on page five like it's not just vacation but you know, incidents of hazing harassment or bullying. Transition in students living situations which could lead to the response for chronic absenteeism, and that could be the non punitive way of addressing when a student is having these absentees, absences for some of these reasons, and it's a, yeah, it's non communicative way, but I don't know.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So I'd be curious about what

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: the real driver is here. There's a list of 13, might have been a couple that were at a long and during discussion, but there's at least 13 on the page. I'm just wondering all out. I wonder out loud if one of these like line item number 12 of excused absences, what we're really angling here though, is the effect of hazing, harassment, and bullying affecting this chronic absenteeism? If so, let's put it on the table and talk about It's like dancing all around it.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: I think we did get testimony on that.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We got testimony, but I'm

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: just saying that here we are, we're splitting out chronic absenteeism from truancy. Is that really the essence of the question? Is we have a we have truancy is unexcused absences. Okay. Good. Do we have another problem that is chronic absenteeism based on some of these excused absences? And this one in particular, because that's what everybody focused on. I'm just curious if that's, if we're, if that's a problem we're really trying to solve.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: I think it's one of

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 13. Well, I think what Ella Chittenden, representative Ella Chittenden was trying to say is that if she didn't have the means or the financial ability to access experts, she would, her child would have been doctor driven. Not chronically absent, but with a plan. But when you, when you get into language about facing that what's excused or unexcused, I think the real question for me is, are we starting to try and track why our students are chronically absent? I think somewhere in this bill, it asks us to start tracking chronic absenteeism, but instead, the only reason I could see to create a laundry list of what's considered excused or unexcused is so we could know what's happening with our kids and try to influence if there's a a big reason that kids are chronically absent.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Do you think this gets to it?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not if it doesn't then ask us to if we just start saying, oh, this child has this many excused ones or this many unexcused ones, I don't think we understand our why we have rising chronic absenteeism better.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay, then it goes on page five, line 17, we're not even asking for folks to provide justification for the absences. So I'm not sure how we're even, it's a may, how are we gonna get into this information? It just seems like we're dancing around a problem, but I'm not sure the problem we're trying to solve. To your point, it would be nice to categorize all this and to really know the facts. But you're, you're not even putting any muscle.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, that's what, when, we never really heard, I think, fully from the state's attorneys because the, when the state's attorney office in Chittenden County got everyone together, their big question was, why are we having so much chronic absenteeism? What is it coming from? How do we then direct our policy and our practices and our schools to address that? I think without hearing from the state's attorneys, we're putting in some kind of reporting requirement. We're just gazing again at chronic absenteeism and making sure we have the right list of things that should be excused.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. I think we're also trying to measure chronic absenteeism.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But is that are we measuring it by excused or unexcused absences because then I have a problem?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I don't. Yeah. I don't think I do either. If it were the individual student, then I think truancy is where that matters. Think of what trying to gauge how much we have and it's and it's the 10%.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But if we're only saying this student is chronically absent, but they're excused, then this student is chronically absent, they're unexcused, what do we gain?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: A lot. We have the data. We're always on data. We need data, data, data.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What is the data we have?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: The unexcused is they just didn't show up, and because everything will have its check mark of why, and then excused is illness, trip, and like everything we've had, but then we have dad.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: How about if how about if the students not being allowed to go to school and being abused at home? Would you wanna know that identify a category that

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's not in character.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: No. But it's all So So that's what I'm saying is that's just definition. Stick a pin at it. Move on. But we're gonna be throwing this thing out. I think there's some good in that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just I'm just flagging that I'm gonna reach out to the those who testified because I just don't think the aspas version addresses all of the things they came in and told us. So we address have a problem moving along with it. Don't have

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: a problem. I just spoke to

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the whole bill. Mark it, we'll come back. Let's move on to page two. Subduer. Parent of guardianship. Any issues with subduer?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: No. K.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Next to that. Step five, and here we are. So we can either go and see me to student who accumulates. Actually, truancy doesn't mean a student truly. It's a student to drink. Well, truancy meets a student who accumulates 20 or more but excuse that. It's either within the same school year or within a district or approved in the last one hundred and seventy five consecutive student attendance days regardless of whether the absences were within the same school year. So we heard, well, there's the definition.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And again, there was no previous definition to define what is truancy, truancy officers' gowns- There is. Around the state?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there was no definition, but there was a there is a statute that states on PA let's see. Guess maybe if I just pull up current law, it'll be easier than looking at all the triggers. So there is a statute that addresses truancy, but it doesn't have a specific definition in it.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No limits.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Wow. Let's let's rigor. Let's look at let's look at it together. Okay. So This is the section we're in right now, subchapter three, compulsory attendance of chapter 25, attendance and discipline in Title 16. So, you can see there's already a statute about attendance may be excused, and it basically just says, makes, a superintendent may excuse a student from attending, but not for more than ten consecutive school days and only for emergencies or for maps in Spearle Town, and then a superintendent of an elementary school, etcetera. So that's, it exists now, but there's no laundry list now. There is a statute about truant officers, who they are. There is a failure to attend. So when a student within the compulsory attendance window who is not excused fails to enter school at the beginning of the year, or being enrolled, fails to attend the school, the teacher is principal, shall notify the truant officer, either the superintendent or school board, unless the teacher or principal is satisfied that the student is absent on account of illness. So, I would say there's not a lot of specificity in there, right? And then, notice and complaint by truant officer. The truant officer, upon receiving that notice, that's required here where there's almost no specificity, they have to do their own work. They have to inquire into the cause of the non attendance of the child, and if the truant officer finds that the child is absent without cause, what is cause? The truant officer shall give written notice to the person having control of the child, etcetera. So, I'm sure there is case law on this and I'm sure there are, right, there's the CHINS process that has its own separate guidance. Is law on the books about truancy now. Right. Whether it's adequate I'm

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: not asking away about limits. I understand.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't say anything in here.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So to to senator Williams' point, I see us we put a pin in it. I think twenty days is, like, grossly excessive. When we got testimony that truancies, chronic absenteeism in other states was at three to ten days. But

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I just recommend to put it in there. So we'll put a crystal witness to this one. And your issue is what it's letting us do, Bennington. That's a full model. I think some actions, it's like wailing.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Horse is out of the barn, as they say. Hard to catch it.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: What was that? That's what I mean.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But you should probably, maybe this is a budget for the agency, we're gonna have the agency in it.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Think two weeks is a good indicator that a flag should go up at some point

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: and then why wait for two?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They all said they didn't want to wait for twenty eight, twenty days for some process to kick in. Okay. And I think that was uneven how that all began to twenty days. Once they do in between.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So, would we be more we

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: be more inclined to go for ten? Two weeks? I would.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah, I think, I mean, yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Unexcused. Yeah. Unexcused. This will, yeah, you're right. Okay. Well, do we want to put ten? Put okay next to it? I I would put my recognition away. Put 10 and see if AOE's got an opinion. Maybe they have a little reason for 20 of the boxes. One

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of the people who testified to us, Nick Connor from the Montpelier Roxbury School District, it was his suggestion that while excused and unexcused, absence are court distinctions for what's considered educational litmusic language, which by the way, I don't think it's up being defined in here that matter, but he would advocate for the definitions to be created by a committee rather than written into legislation. I would tend to agree. I think us trying to spell out what's excused and unexcused is a value judgment rather than something we could do based on best practice.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Truancy triggers function. So, you know, it's a different way. You identify the fact that there is x number of on on on the app. But according to this, we're wait till twenty days before the find the family a thousand dollars of the it's because the parents are not requiring the child to come to school. So. Well, we're also not. The only way we're defining excused absence is

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: on page one, absence that is approved by the speaker attendant or designee or the head of school. There's a whole

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: section on paperwork. If I well, what to expand on what is excuses. That's the whole one is.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Your point. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Well, that's so we want to put so we'll get the agency in to talk to us about the truancy definition.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I'm just advocating that there be a litigious process somewhere to address how we define excused and unexcused absence, but I don't think it's a good idea to do it in statute.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Could have to do that in rules.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Like, know, it's an ongoing question. I think it's like a live question.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, the reason number about 13 caveat, which is on approval of superintendent or doesn't be. I mean, there is it isn't just Well, but this through 12.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This also is a whole list of things that may be excused. Like, just not really necessary. May or may not. It's very subjective. And it's interesting to think of suspension as an excused absence.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Sound like a good thing?

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: That's even on a different list.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think I don't yeah. It's also, if we don't, well we happen to have a definition, I guess your question is-

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, my question is, well this is a whole list of things that if you're able to get in touch with the parents, you're probably gonna end up somewhere on this list of excused. If if you can't reach the parents, it's unexcused. Is there another way we could say that?

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Or maybe maybe his family didn't talk at the time.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, like, it's just that what we heard is that the the reason we need to distinguish between excused and unexcused is because of educational neglect, that we don't know anything about what's happening at home because the parent is not communicating with the school. Everything else is like a subjective look at what's excused or underused besides that the parent is trying to get in touch with the school and make a plan or address what's happening. Educational neglect is they're not communicating in any way, so the school has no way of knowing truly if this child's being neglected or not.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And so your what though is?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. My point is that everything in the excuse list is just everything that that a parent could tell you about why their child's not in school. The unexcused is simply, you have no idea. Is there another way to say that in statute? And then that create such a value based system of this person is in this category because they had excused this person's this category because they have excused.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. We I know you need to go. So We'll we'll stop here on this. If we have somebody, I will be here from Australia on the screen. Is that right? I

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: don't know

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: if she's from Australia, but she's in Australia. Before we go, can I just offer something? I'm not trying to sway your where you go here, because we haven't walked through this bill in a while. And so, there is a section in here that requires the agency to develop a policy to address chronic absenteeism. So when you're having this robust discussion about what do you do between chronic absenteeism and truancy, I read this bill as saying you've asked the agency to come up with the model policy to do just that. And so perhaps that is an area where you can build some specificity in on what those steps should be. There's also a requirement for documentation of the steps taken to address chronic absenteeism, as well as a template for standard documentation of chronic absenteeism to be provided to parents. So I think you have room to play with that built in here, depending on where you want to go. Right. So if we're tracking different types of what makes a student absent, that lends itself well to future model policy. If we're just trying to come up with everything we think should be excused, I don't think that lends itself well to the creation of model policy because we just had someone come in and say she really worries about a whole category of people that were, that could be left out of what's excused.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, that's in the bill.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's in the bill, but does that speak to, she said it really spoke to having the means and a district that listened to her and having, you know, basically the money to pay for what became an excused asset.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, the other way to argue, just for the sake of discussion here, is that by not having enough specificity to build something like that with balcony craft.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's right.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, which you're arguing?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, no, I'm arguing that we shouldn't be the ones to try and do the laundry list of what counts as mixed use assets.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You're saying we're just just one.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, unless these are like broader categories.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, maybe what we're doing, maybe what we're edging toward here is something that changes this to simply head toward the agency coming up with a policy.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: A model policy and a tracking system so we know why one out of four kids are chronically absent.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We also have the issue of truancy. The second issue here is truancy itself. And.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that comes into play when the parent has done nothing essentially to communicate with the school.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. So, the question is, do we put the truancy in the in the model policy as well or do we want to try to deal with truancy now but give it a go it's okay give it a go

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: and we'll see you again Thursday.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, we have to, we, the reason we're doing this in this order is that we have some of, we have, it's 05:30 right now in the morning. If I'm right about that in Australia. Is that right?

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: 06:30.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: 06:30. All right. And so we were able to get you. We're back on technology. That's 06:15, right? Yes. 06:15. Yeah. So, have with us a monitor, monitor, publication manager and co director of Commercialism and Educational Research Unit National Education policy center by Zoom. So, welcome. And so for the record, are Faith, can you hear us?

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: Yes.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay.

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: Yes. And you can hear me?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes. For the you are?

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: I am Faith Bongartz, as you mentioned, I am a research faculty member at the University of Colorado Boulder in the National Education Policy Center that's housed at the School of Education there. Shall I go on?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes, yes.

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: Okay, great. I'm very thankful for your invitation to testify today about H650, an act relating to educational technology products. I've in my capacity at NEPC, I've studied marketing in schools for nearly twenty years, and for the past ten years, my research is focused on the educational and privacy impacts of digital technologies used in schools. I'm testifying in my personal capacity today, but with the background of those years of research. And to be clear, I don't accept funding from tech companies for my work. So, I want to share with you what I've learned from my research and analysis of the implications of schools' use of digital educational products. And my research leads to my assessment that age six fifty is a really important step forward in protecting Vermont's children, specifically the integrity of their educations, the content that they're exposed to online through their schooling, and their data privacy. So I want to start with the fact that school is just so different than when we were kids or even when our children were kids. Digital ed tech products are ubiquitous now in American classrooms. And, you know, for those of us who aren't regularly who are regularly in schools, excuse me, the ubiquity of these products can make it hard to believe that it wasn't always like this, or it doesn't have to be like this. And for those of us who aren't regularly in schools, it's kind of mind blowing to think about all of the very many functions that digital educational products serve and how they shape those functions as well. Any given district may use hundreds, if not thousands, of intervals of products. And just some examples, teachers and students use them to organize and provide curriculum content, structure classroom teaching and student collaborations, assess and track student learning, and communicate with parents and guardians. Administrators use them for things like making staffing and procurement decisions and for reporting purposes. And just a handful of student facing applications that I've come across in my research are Google Workspace for Education, Kahoot, Khan Academy, Magic School, Nearpod, PowerSchool. And some people argue that when they're used under the supervision of teachers for educational purposes, the so called ed tech is different and better than other forms of digital technology platforms like social media or video games. But essentially, ed tech's still big tech. It's complete with many of the design concerns that are associated with the social media and gaming platforms that kids use outside of schools. And then some, right? Because these ed tech products have they're serving a different function. They're mediating between teachers and students. They're delivering educational content. They're making educational decisions, and through all of that, they're collecting huge amounts of sensitive data from children as they learn and grow. And another way that EdTech is different from other tech products is that children are required to use them in their schooling. So there are all kinds of pedagogical issues to consider. Digital products influence the nature of teaching and learning in a variety of ways, and all of them, to my mind, point to the importance of the state knowing which products are being used in schools and establishing a means of understanding what the characteristics of those products are, and also laying out the ground rules for companies that want to do business in Vermont, and importantly, have access to Vermont's children. So, kind of alluded to the fact that the pedagogical theories that are embedded in digital platforms and learning programs shape the student learning environment. So in other words, are algorithms that are embedded in these products and they shape teaching curriculum and assessments. They tend to narrow the curriculum to the competency based approaches that are amenable to digital delivery and assessment. They may also embed cultural and other biases in curriculum and assessment, and they also may expose students to marketing and behavioral tracking. And this is especially the case for students in low income districts, which are just more likely to choose less costly products or options. Assessments in products that use predictive analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning can harm students in difficult to identify ways. And importantly, as a general rule, the economics of bringing tech products to market incentivizes opacity and discourages adequate testing of product algorithms. I'm reminded all the time of the term minimal viable product that's put out there for use. Now EdTech products also collect vast amounts of data, and they do this partially to fulfill their intended educational functions, but they also do it because more data allows for more additional uses, and that could include interoperability with other digital products and also the development of new features and complementary products, and that is something that is encouraged by investors in these products. So importantly, most federal and state law, I would say all, but I'll go with most, distinguishes between student data that's clearly associated with a student and de identified data that no longer has the students identifying information attached to it. And this is legal, but it's very problematic, and I personally am on a bit of a mission to make sure that people, especially lawmakers like you, are aware of the distinction. There are no retention limits on so called de identified data. Providers can save, share, and use these data in perpetuity for all kinds of commercial and other purposes, like predicting the likelihood that a student might engage in risky behaviors or commit a crime, and whether these predictions are accurate really matters much less than that they're made and used for things like, for example, determining insurance rates or police surveillance or guiding students toward different academic tracks. And so, I want to be clear that providers are enabled to collect, retain, and use data extracted from students from all aspects of their state required schooling for their own purposes that are undisclosed in perpetuity with virtually no limits. And when a district stops using a product and assumes that all the data is destroyed, it's actually not. Any data that was de identified continues to exist in that form. And, you know, if you think about it, back when FERPA was enacted in 1974, de identification was real and significant. I mean, you could shred things, but in the age of digital platforms, de identified data are a valuable fungible commercial asset. So moving on, the majority of districts in Vermont use a national data privacy agreement, the NDPA, that was created by the Student Data Privacy Consortium. And this NDPA is better than many, and it has some important protections, but it was created in partnership with industry consortium members, and therefore it raises some concerns about the fox guarding the henhouse. Of particular worry to me, not surprisingly, are the provisions related to de identified data. Additionally, the NDPA doesn't include a clear retention schedule that determines when student data should be deleted, and importantly, it names providers as school officials under FERPA theoretically under the direct control of the school. But schools can't see what the product's algorithms do with student data. And unless districts individually negotiate terms that don't appear by default in the NDPA, their control is minimal at best. And in many cases, there's no opportunity for negotiation at all. So, Google, for example, which is a major provider worldwide, as a matter of course, dictates terms and conditions. Districts don't sign a contract with Google. In other situations, teachers adopt products via these so called click through agreements without any contract at all. Products that I mentioned earlier, along Kahoot, Nearpod, Prodigy, Zurn are just a handful of products that can be accessed that way. Products that are obtained for no cost are more likely to be used by financially challenged districts or by teachers without official district support. And free products procured through click through arrangements are more likely to contain advertising to students. Progyny is an example that contains in app marketing. And then there's AI. AI amplifies my concerns. In addition to standalone AI products for schools, other ed tech products are increasingly incorporating generative AI features. And there's just a lot of money supporting the integration of AI into public schools, and that integration is happening so fast. Products that incorporate artificial intelligence are particularly opaque because the mathematical calculations that are embedded in them are unknowable, even to their own developers. These products threaten to corrupt curriculum with misinformation, degrade the relationships between teachers and students, bias consequential decisions about student performance, exacerbate violations of student privacy, increase surveillance, and further reduce the transparency and accountability of educational decision making. And to my mind, all of these increase the need for the registry that's provided by H650, and particularly for annual registration to address the fact that products are continually changing and with many of those changes currently in the direction of more AI as opposed to less. Schools and students need their state to support them because in theory districts carefully choose the best ed tech products, negotiate the contracts with providers, and directly control the way that the products work. But that's not actually the way it works, Not the reality. More often than not, teachers are flooded with marketing for ed tech products, and they'll choose products influenced by this marketing. Districts lack the personnel, the expertise, and the power to obtain and analyze the kind of information that's accounted for by age six fifty, and districts, if they have the capacity, they may try products before they adopt them, but they can't ever legally examine the programming of proprietary products, including the particular programming that determines how a product processes student data to make educational decisions. And as with any other digital product that we've all come into contact with, when EdTech products are updated, you either have to accept the changes or absorb the costs involved in finding alternatives, and that can be prohibitive for schools.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Just to start the discussion here, What do we do with this? Because we were not gonna be able to get Google to for instance, you know, Google doesn't care what we say or do and are we gonna is do we say that kids can't use Google or and everything you're saying is just like mind numbing in how much of this there is and how are we ever going to keep track of it or you you know, you can have this the attestation of the company but you know, how reliable is that? So, what do we actually do? Are you is your bottom line that we should just not use the tech in schools? Don't see how I'm beginning to wonder how the registry actually even does anything because it changes every ten minutes and who's going to be checking on it. And so what do we actually do?

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: I say you start, okay? I think it's really important to start to get a handle on these various products that are being used in schools. And some of them are great, some of them are not so great. It's the case that there's this flood and schools need districts need that support of knowing what they are and what the features are. And so the idea of the annual registry, I think is important because you're right, it's like, you know, it's constantly changing. So annually know what's out there, what's being used in schools. So where I was going to go is that, you know, I've talked to parents who discover that their kids are using some product and they don't know anything about it and they can't find out anything about it. The information's not maintained. People don't know, schools don't know how to ask the right questions. And so what the registry does is it starts to gather information about what those questions are, what information is needed, how districts and parents and everybody can assess the product, and it puts some power back in the hands of the public as opposed to right now, it's not, it's really not.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think we get that part. Think we get the not part. We're trying to figure the path forward, center weeks.

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: Right, exactly. So that's what I mean, if you keep that registry, it will help as a path forward. It's not going to answer all the questions, it's not going to all of a sudden make everything perfect, but it gives you a start to at least knowing what's out there so then you can make decisions going forward.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, so that makes sense of question.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: If I can, thank you ma'am. A previous testimony a couple hours ago introduced two different concepts, organizations, I guess. One is SDPC. Who apparently already has cataloged tech ed software and they utilize another organization or a system TEC that vets software. So the two together kind of provide the answer. So, first off, are you aware of those two systems or groups or organizations? And do

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: you No, I'm not placing them the acronyms. I okay. Well, that's your second question.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: No. That that is the question. So okay. So if it's not SDPC who catalogs TechEd, is there another way

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: do That's a student data privacy consortium. Okay.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So they utilize TEC, who vets the software. Is that the right road to be starting to embark on?

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: I think the right road to start to embark on is what products are being used in Vermont schools. I think it's really important to know because there are so many and they're they're different from district to district. So I think that that that is an important feature of this bill.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay, thank you, ma'am.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Did you have, we interrupt you?

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: You did, but I appreciate the interruption and where I was going was that I think this is an important way to support local control, right? Like, it might seem that it's inconsistent with local control, but it's actually not, because what I think is particularly important is that local communities can determine their own pedagogical goals, determine what those are, and then figure out what tech products can be used to support those goals. And the state providing a registry, providing information to them can really help with them making those determinations. It would free the districts of the expense and effort required to vet platforms, and it would reduce inequities among districts, and it enables the state to leverage its power to ensure the quality and safety of the products that students use. And something that the registry does, going back to your earlier question, is it allows you to create this report to figure out what kinds of features are important to include in the registry, and I think it should include a way of updating that, because what TEC and the student data privacy consortium, what they're looking at isn't necessarily going to be what you're interested in as time goes on. So it allows you to make those decisions. So obviously, you know that I think that this is an important piece of legislation, an important way for the state to back up schools and parents and families. But I have some specific thoughts also that I wanted to share with you about details of the bill. Five of them. First, the issue of the annual registration, it isn't clearly stated in the bill, and I think that should be made explicit. Second, I think it's important that persons filing with the state will provide information about all their products, even if they're not explicitly being used in Vermont then, and even if they're offered to schools at no cost. And, you know, I mentioned earlier that the free products don't offer the protections of a negotiated DPA, and the ones that that are free often are the ones that contain advertising and marketing. The third thing that also came out in our discussion a bit is that the bill includes an aspect of districts providing information about the products that their students are using, and you may find that they don't always know, and that actually makes this bill important because it will encourage them to know and encourage them to have a clear list of what products are being used. Sometimes now districts have a list of recommended or allowed products, but not maintain a list of what's being used. So by having this registry, it's going to encourage that to happen, to just know what's being used. And then the fourth point that I wanted to make is that the report that the AOE is going to be producing is going to make a determination of whether independent third party consultants should assist with certification, and the BUILD text references Internet Safety Labs, and they can help with privacy related concerns, but the AOE might also want to consult with independent experts in its consideration of whether and how assistive technology may be included in an IEP. Assistive technology is useful in some cases, but it may be counterproductive in others, and so it may be useful to consult with third party experts. And then the last thing is that the criteria to be considered in the certification process include targeted advertising. I recommend this be expanded to include all advertising, including advertising that's not targeted because that will be useful to know. And, you know, obviously, I think that this is an important step forward in recognizing the complexity of the tech landscape in schools and getting a handle on it. The tech platforms may be very useful in certain cases, but they also pose threats to children, and this bill and the registry that it calls for and the study that it calls for puts Vermont in a position to assess threats and reduce them. I thank you all again for inviting my testimony and I'm happy to answer any other questions you might have. Questions?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes, Senator Reverend.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Thank you for your testimony. It's good to hear. Do you know of any other states doing the same thing yet?

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: No. Vermont would be the first, which, is, I mean, it's exciting to me. I've been studying this for a long time and I've been seeing that, again, I mean, I was saying the same thing over and over again that state support is really important. And so when Vermont is doing it, I think that that is great.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: All right, thank you. Senator Williams. Hey, thank you for your testimony. I'm a user of the technology. I can pick a computer out of a lineup one out of five times but I think the concern I got is that we're making policy and we're not experts in the field. So, we've got, I'll give you an example. I have a number of web browsers on my laptop and I've I've got another one that's supposed to shield, you know, screen out, block a lot of stuff And I got I like using it because there's a way you can, you know, just erase everything that's on there. And this morning, I got on it and the screen looked different. And I said, well, you know, doesn't work. Then, I found out that it was powered by Google. I don't know if Google bought out this particular add on web browser but they they can they can transform themselves without anybody knowing it. How would we protect the our students and and the state from that without now without knowing?

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: That's absolutely true. They change, and they'll alert you maybe with an email, or you can go to the website and see the privacy policy will change. Yes, that's very true. And the protection that I see is this requirement companies that want to do business in Vermont schools, that want to have access to Vermont's kids filing, saying this is where we are at this point in our product's life. This is what it's doing. Will it change in the middle of the year? Maybe. And then they'll have to come back the next year and tell you where they are at that particular time.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: you know, it's a flood of changes, but you're at least getting a snapshot each year to notice the changes. And you know, I did that a little bit with my research when I was looking at Summit Learning Program. I looked back at privacy policies over the course of five or six years, and the changes were significant, and the changes weren't good. Knowing that gives you a place to start.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes, sir. So one last question for me. Doctor. Cooney spoke and his suggestion, I think is what he was leaning toward, was to get rid of any electronic because statistics show we're getting dumber easier. What are your thoughts?

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: Oh, gee. My thoughts is that I have real concerns about tech products and I think it's important to remember that for a really long time we had schools without them, and we taught without them, and it works and that kind of teaching develops aspects of children's cognition and emotional regulation and so forth that tech products can't, but at the same time, there are particular uses that can be helpful to schools and that every school's got to figure that out for themselves, like where and when they want to use these products. If we just said no completely, like maybe we wouldn't need this bill, right? Because there wouldn't be any tech products at all. But if we're gonna give schools the right to decide when they think a tech product might be better than doing it without tech, then we need to know what it is they're using, and we need to provide them with the information to make that kind of a reasoned decision.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Williams.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: My last question. So the five things you just said that the bill was lacking. Is that in your testimony? Yes. Yes. In the back. Okay.

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: Yeah. Yeah. I put that all in the written testimony as well.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Thank you very much. So we we need

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to go. But I still can't get my arms around how, if a high school class is using Chromebooks, Google is Google, Google's not gonna even bother filling out their spreadsheet. Just, I mean, that's so, and they can go anywhere. So I'm having a hard time figuring out what we're actually doing here or how it's actually gonna make any difference. I get it light for the younger grades with some of the tech, the products I don't know how you do this when you've got kids with their Chromebooks going on Google.

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: Google is a big problem. I don't think resolving Google should be the impediment to trying to get a handle on everything else.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, fair enough. Okay, thank you for getting up early and meeting with us. We appreciate the effort for your part and everything you do. So thank you.

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: It was a pleasure and I appreciate your effort and everything you do and for waiting for me.

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

[Dr. Faith Boninger (University of Colorado Boulder, NEPC)]: Thank you. Bye.