Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: We are at one.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Senate Education Committee after a short break. We're back and we're taking the stage 09:30, the part of Doctor. Hazelville. And we are starting off with the discussion with Jill Brooks Campbell and David Klingel, Sabbatore Agency as a patient family. So actually you have to say that again. Yeah. For the record.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Sure. The record, Bill Briggs Campbell, Deputy Secretary of Education and Chief of Operations,

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: and Jay McRaevel, Assistant Attorney General on behalf of the Agency of Education. And I'd just like to make clear that I'm here on behalf of the Agency of Education and not the Attorney General's office.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: We accept you. We wear a lot of hats. So thank you for the opportunity to come in, and I appreciate the work that you all have been doing on this bill. I'm mainly going to let Jamie talk about some of the background sort of technical information and definitions around truancy versus chronic absence, why both are included in the bill, and why it's important to retain both. There's there's a There's a method to it. I do want to say that in general, this bill has really clear consensus, which is great. It means, I think, that we're all kind of on the right track. I think some of the places where maybe you're starting to see some, what I would call minor disagreements, are around some of the, where do we want to be in the future state versus right now we have a twenty five percent chronic absence rate. Our recommendation is that you need to use every tool in the toolkit at this moment in time. With that, I'll go ahead and let Janie take it from here. I have seen the recommendations from BSA and VSBA, and I can also speak to those, where we generally actually have quite a bit of alignment and where we might have a couple of differences, but I have some recommendations around this as well. If we can save that towards

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: the end. Okay. Alright. Alright. So truancy already exists in the law. It is a concept that exists as an idea of a place where you start to get legal penalties or legal enforcement when a student's been absent to such a degree. And it exists in current law and serves in our current understanding about when the legal system should really step in. It starts at 20 or more unexcused absences in the last school year. We made a little bit of a change, or we're proposing a little bit of a change, so that it includes not just the last school year you're currently in, but the last 175 student attendance days. So, it would include, you know, if the students are in the end of the last year. But it only includes unexcused substances. It does not take into consideration of used substances. The new concept that we're trying to bring into the law is chronic absence. This is a new concept to our law, but it's not a new concept in general. It is a measurement that is sought by the US Department of Education. We report on it every year. And it is counted it includes all absences because all absences impact extrinsic living learning. So it includes excused, unexcused suspensions. And it doesn't it is it it includes anything over 10% or more of the school year. So, that starts really early in the school year. It can be as little as two days a month. So, schools can start taking interventions very early. The interventions that are triggered by chronic absence are not necessarily punitive in any respect. They are supportive measures that are intended to grab students' families and students in order to reengage them safely and helpfully into the school system. So, the concept that this brings in is bringing in a support system through the model policy that schools would be required to engage and re engagement with students when they've hit that level, that lower level of absence. Crimeing absence is earlier in sort of like the continuum of absence.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's not that much of a group, right? Because it's only

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: You know, it is, because it can be triggered very early in the school year, and those interventions can be triggered very early in the school year. They can be triggered as soon as two abscesses in the first Oh, it's not necessarily

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: 10% of the total school year, it's 10% of the days that have passed today. Yes. I haven't, okay. Yes. Okay.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Can you say, articulate that? Sure. Radiator, it's within 10% of the month's school year.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: Yeah, so other current school year, the chronic absence can be triggered at any time. So it's the percentage of the school year that has elapsed so far. Those some forms matter.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Like Yeah,

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: yeah, for example, early in the school year, you might have a student who is starting to miss quite a lot of school for either excused or unexcused reasons. Under a truancy framework, nothing kicks in until they've missed twenty days with unexcused absences. So by the time the school is sort of required to do something, we're well down the path. Right? Chronic absence is a totally different framework. So we we sort of

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: joke about, like, think about when

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: we were growing up and, like, truancy, and there's truancy officers going to door, and it was like the idea was like kids in leather jackets with cigarettes kind of roaming the town. Right? Chronic absence is a totally different way to approach it, which is we are noticing a pattern of absences, and we're going to engage early, and really start to figure out what's going on, what are the root causes of what's happening here, to sort of short circuit the pattern.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay, so putting numbers to it, first two weeks, that's one absence, and the first four weeks, that's two absence. Is that that really weird?

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Yeah, well, Like,

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: it's so literally triggered.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Yeah, I mean, it would trigger an alert, right? So think about the way, and and Nick Connor's actually excellent example of this. You you heard from Nick who's here in Rocksbury. It's how do you use your student information systems? All of our student information systems, you can actually set up an early warning system. It's like flip a switch, and it would start to trigger, like, oh, you know what? Jill's kids have been out, or, you know, Jill's daughter's been out three times in the past month, and it would be a phone call. Hey, we're noticing that your daughter hasn't been in school. You're absolutely right, she was sick for three days, I should have gotten that note in. Or yes, she was sick and then we went to grandma's.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No, don't schools do that now?

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: A lot of them do do

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that now. Yeah, A lot of

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: them do as well. But it's inconsistent, it's

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: not required. Okay, and it

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: also then relates to the long policy. This is a patient who need long policy

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: treatment. That's exactly right. And we're actually well, I think it's important to know, we've been working on this for over two years now, really in-depth with partners in the field, national experts. The pediatric health community is really heavily involved in this, and we're actually well down the road in having a draft of the model policy and procedures, because you always want the two to go together, out and working with the field on it. So, we're well down the path on this, which is helpful.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: So, really, I mean, the new thing that's being introduced to the law here, or we would hope it'd be introduced, is that concept of chronic absence, so that we can have school districts have a consistent, supportive set of interventions so that they can reengage students and families. Phone calls, it could be home visits, it could be, I think Ben testified about helping a family walk to school one morning to get a better way of, like, reengaging with those families. And truancy, though, is just, like, at the far end of that spectrum. Like, we're not proposing to get rid of truancy through this, but we're hoping that it becomes just one tool in the toolkit and sort of a last resort tool in that toolkit. So

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: truancy would so your

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: hope is that 95% of this takes place to the troponic absenteeism policy and that truancy comes in only they won't respond in phone calls.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That truancy box kicks in. Okay.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: And it is a tool that, as I said, future state, we would like to not have to have that tool anymore. Right? But it is actually a tool, I think traditionally and understandably, it's been seen as very punitive, but there is value in that tool, in that when you have already done all of the prevention and intervention steps that you can possibly do, at a certain point, you do need a stronger framework that can be utilized by the state, and in this case, it's the state's attorneys that have that discretion, because it can also be another way to get resources to that family to understand what's happening. Right? So it doesn't have to be a complete punitive process, but it is it's a bigger it's a bigger sort of stick and a bigger tool to bring to bear when all else has faked.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The fancy testimony for the fact that it has it has to be there or shouldn't hurt it.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: But truancy really only comes in when it comes to unexcused absences. So one of the- Which is why we have the differentiation between excuses.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So there has to one part of the discussion we had or an element of the discussion involved around whether there should be excused absences versus whether it's just absences. So, like that?

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Yes, you

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: want to speak to Yeah, can I speak to think, well, I don't think anyone wants to brand used absences as absences for a good reason versus bad, all absences result in students being out of school? But you only want to kick into this legal process if there's if everything else has been tried. And if a student has had, you know, a lot of sick days, or if there is some very understandable reason why they're absent and the school can continue working with them to promote their attendance, we're not looking for truancy to be, implicated. Knowing the reason for absence in itself also gives you an indication that you're able to communicate and work with the family. So, alone is great thing, but you wouldn't want to kick into truancy when there are any number of these reasons that are currently set out in the proposal. And

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: so I think we do need to acknowledge something that is real thing, Right? So those definitions between unexcused and excused and the discretionary authority that still lies with the superintendent, it can have unintended consequences of disproportionate impacts. That is a real thing. The data tells us that. So it's, you know, how do you mitigate that? You need to have some clear definitions and some clear policies. And so part of our mitigation work is making those definitions there and the policies clear, and then the ability to get some reporting back, right? So we already know that when it comes to just missed days of schools, we have really serious disproportionate gaps with our subgroups, right? So we know that students on IEPs, students that are economically disadvantaged, in particular, homeless and foster youth have by far the highest rates of absence in our schools. And so just having more and nuanced data is really important. We don't disagree that having this discretion can lead to disproportionate impacts, but actually having the data that comes back and shows us that is part of the usefulness. But if you're going to have truancy, you actually do need to still have this the unexcused and the excuse that they're they sort of go together.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. And from my perspective, we're not doing under Cooper's kids any favor by not. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. But you could have been interrupted. Or was it done?

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: I think I got interrupted with questions that filled out what I was going to say, so I think we're just open for questions.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So you said there was parts of the language you didn't even mind if you want to understand.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Well, so I think what we could do is, looking at the memo that the SA and the SBA sent over with their recommendations, I think they actually have some alignment. So we could maybe save you all some time by saying like, Yeah, I think that's a good idea. So if we look at that memo K. I'll check. Yeah.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So it's. Proofing guns, IOE?

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: No. This is from BSA and BSVA, and I guess they have learned they maybe weren't gonna have time to get in to provide testimony before you all made

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We just keep it. Okay. We have that posted.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: No. I had just posted my head stuff today. Good. They're I do post that now.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Go ahead. I just got into, like, fifteen minutes before I

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: came down. I was like, gosh. It's not perfect for today, but I can I think we'll review it? So some of it is pertinent to

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: what we were just discussing, so I could maybe articulate and.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Maybe we'll have to see if we

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: can do it. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You're gonna send it to us.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: Yes, I'd be sending it to you and Let me know

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: if we're ready to post. Yeah,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you can do it. I'll it. Hang on here. Oh, I see. I have them. Yeah. I I haven't. There you go, sir. Just today. You won't have it. Yeah. Okay. You you're about to get it. Just give me one. I just got a. Okay. So we have it.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Yeah. Yep. So the first recommendation from VSA and VSBA was some legislative intent language. We actually think it's excellent language, and we would recommend it and put it in there. It actually distinguishes between chronic absence insurance truancy, and really is describing that the state is moving towards prevention, intervention, and support, and that truancy is sort of a tool of last resort, which we agree with. There was also a recommendation to remove the categories that are existing in the language around unexcused and excused. So we think that it is important to have the categories, but if you didn't want them in statute, you could add a line that says as established in AOE model policy. So if we're required to create a model policy, we can move the definitions in there, make sure that they're implementable and useful and clear for districts and families. So both in this section for excused and unexcused, we could simply strike the categories there and, you know, as established in the early model policy, and I'm sure that would help. Was in sections eleven twenty one and eleven twenty three.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But what about eleven two? Well, we don't want to strike. Let me just think out loud here. I don't think we want to strike section one, the the section definitions. The question perhaps is.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: No, not the section one definitions. I'm sorry.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: What really is eleven twenty three, right?

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Yes. So it's the section on so if you look at there's a list of definitions that make us, yeah, an eleven twenty three. Those are exclaimed absences. Mhmm. And so BSA BSA has recommended that that be taken out, and we would recommend it and replace it with as established in the AOE model policy. And part of part of what's good about having something in model policy is that, you know, we're we are at the beginning of really engaging in this work. Right? This is a major strategic initiative for the next three to five years. And having the definitions in statute, if we are finding that they're not working as intended, we have to come back. Right? Whereas if they're in model policy, we can work with the build to update the policy. So

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: We don't have the models policy we've got. Right?

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: No. But we're we actually have a draft that we we've got pretty much ready to go at this point, and our next phase is gonna be working pretty intensively with all the partners we've been working with for the last two years.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And is there anything you're trying to think of a situation where

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: you don't do what we want, we don't know at the one time,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But anyway, I So if you have I have a note for instance at 11:23 zero eight five by five, that you would not include?

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: We would recommend not including that in the statute.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's a paging, harassment, or bullying. In fact, some testimonies say, no, that has to be in there.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: We actually do not, and we were hoping to get to provide some testimony for you all on why we don't recommend that, and there's a couple other sections in here where there's references to HIV, like prevention and policy, and part of that is that work is actually existing in another place right now. We actually already have statute from HHV, and we are in, again, major strategic initiative engaging in major HHB prevention work. So we would recommend not including it in an attendance policy bill, which is what it is.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So what if that's the reason the absenteeism?

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: If the reason for the absenteeism is the student's reaction to having experienced harassing or bullying, most likely it's because they're having experiencing mental distress as a result, or anxiety, or sort of like mental or physical harm. And that already exists as number one in this list, physical or mental illness of a student. What one of our concerns is, is if we put this in here, as much as we are saying, trying to message, that this isn't a list of, like, good absences. This doesn't mean that an absence is you're not having the negative an absence is still an absence from school, and you're still missing out on school. And I think we would be concerned to be inadvertently messaging to families and schools that if a student has been the victim of harassing, hating, or bullying, instead of putting in systems that we already know for safety plans, separating students, offering counseling, things like that, that we think can work, that have proven to work in other instances. We're saying it's just safer for your kid not to go to school, and that is not safe for that school, that student. It's not good pedagogically for that student. It's not a solution. It's not a solution. And so, I think we have concerns about including it because of the potential messaging issue. When there is if the student is really having a serious hardship coming back to school, that attendance would be excused. And now, we we do have forthcoming testimony on this, but I'm gonna preview it a little bit. I do think we we care strongly about reengaging students who have had to, who have been the victim of harassment, gazing, or bullying, or other conduct, and making sure that they've reengaged in school effectively after that situation or, like, in order to resolve that situation. So we're not saying we're not trying to leave this out entirely. It's just we don't want harassing people, like, to swallow all of the work of chronic absenteeism, which is it's currently written in the policy section later. It it could when 16 BSA five seventy already requires a bottle policy and the prevention of harassment.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, I agree with them that it would fall under four for mental health because if you are being harassed or both, that it definitely has effect on you. So I just have no issue.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: So it's the word defense, the policy choice, right? Right. And you could leave it in statute or we could move it over to model policy. And we're we're sort of satisfied with that other location. We will the agency will be definitely proposing in the model policy, if it's not here, categories that we'll be working with the field to ensure it's deductible.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, Hershey.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I know there's suggestions that HHSB would be covered either in longer for the mental health and the mental illness, But is the proposal to remove all of these from this bill

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: So that's what into the model.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: PSA and VSBA recommended.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yeah.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: We're saying if that's the policy direction that you So they had recommended removing it from statute. We're saying, in response to that recommendation, you could make that policy choice, but we would recommend that you replace it with language that says the AOE will have definition in follow policy. So it's directing us to do something rather than having it live in Title 16 and statute. Because if we ever need to change those definitions, we've gotta come back here and get them changed to model as opposed to the model policy, which we should be updating.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So the model policy is section three on page 11. Correct? Yep. And so we would just need a little bit of language to make sure that the categories are covered in the model policy. Is that what you're looking to do?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Mean, you could it it could be

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: as simple as, you know, this agency shall that they're not as good as you are. The agency shall create definitions for its use and kind of sees absences and modelings.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Michael, was trying to email you and let you know there's probably another half hour. Is that okay? Sure. Okay.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: And I I have a hard stop at 03:45. I have reviewed what Michael did, and you've got a thumbs up on on the revised language. So

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: what's people have?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: A little on, sorry. I'm a little on the fence. Feel like there's a bit more nuance to the differences between HHB and mental health issues. You know what mean? Student could be getting harassed or bullied and the parents or the students initial take on the situation is that they have a mental health issue but they they just don't want to be, you know, head up with physical risk if they're going to solve it or if they're being verbally harassed. Yeah, that's not a mental health What was that?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's not a mental health issue. It can give you a mental health issue, but it's not. Yeah. It's not irrational. Yeah, so.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: I think that there is other reasons, other reasons not specified, So there is discretion that superintendents have, but I think, to the point that Jamie was trying to make, is that if a student is experiencing hazing, harassment, and bullying to the point where they are not able to attend school, what we actually need is to kick in all of the procedures and processes that get that student reengaged back in school, rather than sending the message that this student who is already being harmed by a situation is then missing school and missing out on their education as well. So it's like a double harm. So we would want to really be emphasizing instead of kicking in a different part of statute, which already exists, which is the requirements around HHV processes, prevention, and reintegration. So it's almost like we're taking chronic absence in statute, and we're trying to talk about HHB in ways that actually belong in a different part of statute.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Or if we, what if in the model policy you're developing, we also said it would show clear. Uh-oh,

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: did I say something?

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Smart. We

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: shall consider or include the policy. We have a section about the people we need another. Yeah. I don't know how to say that, but

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: So it just points back to the other piece of statute. Yeah. That's what we would recommend. I think it's important to sort of keep When this bill sort of came in, it was clean and sort of very tight on, this is an attendance policy document, right? Naturally, it kind of starts to add a few things in. It's not that those things aren't unimportant, it's just that they do have other places that they live, and we might actually be sending an unintended message right to do so. So, do I imagine that in a situation where a student is in really, really feeling serious mental distress, or even a safety issue, that the school wouldn't be aware of that and working with that student and family, and that would be addressed in their absence? I just think that would be an unusual situation, but more importantly, we don't wanna send the message of, oh, that's an excuse, absence. It's it's okay. What we actually want is action to be happening, and it might send that message.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Well, mean, wouldn't the chronic absentee process kick in if, because, you know, that applies to excused absences, right? Yes.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: wouldn't that be one of the actions that takes in?

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: Yes, they would still engage with the campaign, try to address that. I think it's the inadvertent messaging. The potential that, you know, at some point, weeks ago, something happened, and the student just continues to be absent from school every day. They're I I I think it's there's just the potential for, you know, for pronouncing of the idea that showing up at school has no or failing to show up at school doesn't have a harm than it does. So you want just wanna make sure that I think that's I think just sort of the the idea is to just continue to make sure that it doesn't send the wrong message, that this is a safe way to handle it, instead of addressing it at the school with the resources that they already agreed.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: You could do a, if you wanted to do, take it out of statute, say the agency shall put categories of definitions of excusing, unexcused, model policy, and shall consider. Like, you can require us to consider whether or not a student who's experiencing gazing harassment and bullying should be considered. And that will give us an opportunity to maybe work with the field and work with the HHB Council and have that conversation and then develop the policy. So that's another option, they can, they can, shall consider us. There was a couple of other areas.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yep, so I'll be ready to, what's the thinking about this?

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I'm okay with you to follow policy, but my only hesitation is if we left it in the legislation now, we could get potential effect very quickly, whereas the policy is still another year out. Correct. Okay. At least. That that's the only. Right?

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Would Can we put in policy that it goes through to this until the date that AOB has? Can you do that?

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: I would wanna hear from the field on implementation impacts. I I just like, we're coming to the end of the school year. The next school year is not so far away for them to be trying to put in place, like, the I I don't this is one of those ones where I wanna pause and say, are we going to break something that we don't know about in terms of operationalizing these requirements for, like, the next school year. I don't know what the implications of that are for schools and what it would take to operationalize. So I'd be a little bit hesitant to put them on a timeline without understanding the implications of that timeline.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: When would this bill take effect, when would all this take effect on July '86?

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: As I said, we're down the road with our chronic absenteeism policy and procedures, and then with that comes tools, templates, training, resource, right? Because having all of this foundational is step number one. Really need this to go forward, to enable us to do everything else we need to do. But addressing chronic absence is just work in the schools that they need to do. It's best practices, it's tools, it's data. And so getting the policies in place, the definitions in place, the sort of statutory underpinning, is the really important first step. And then we've gotta do, like, the work work, which needs to go, you know, quickly and for the next probably three to five years. We want this to be in nature. We

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: want to try and look in the lens, let's just try on that language.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's St. James' Office of Legislative Council. You all have a lot of faith in me that I tracked that. Am I correct in understanding that we're removing the definitions for excused absence and unexcused absence?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And asking the agency to include definitions for those terms in the model policy. Is that what the committee is asking?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes. And then when doing so, that you could that they consider reference to what? Children.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: I think I said a smart sentence in there, but I don't know what it was. Sure. What reference to It was reference to whether or not a student experiencing hazing harassment and bullying shall also be considered an excuse absence, something like that. But it's it's directing us to consider that as part of it. It's one of the categories we must consider.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So a student experiencing an absence due to experiencing Just

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: due to the impact of harassing

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: student absences? I think we have to tie it to absences somehow.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Yeah, okay, so as currently written, a student's absence is excused, right? It's considered excused. And then it just says number 12, incidents of hazing, harassment, or bullying. Bottom.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. We're we're talking about more than just definitions. You wanna pull I'm I'm talking to the committee now. You wanna pull the entire additions to section eleven twenty three on page four?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes, that's what's under consideration.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, that's not the definition.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: It's the categories of bugs.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: Yeah, we

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: didn't wanna touch the definition.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The on the front end, leave those at the very start. Okay. Let's go. So you're not going to if we look at page one of age nine thirty as passed by the house, you are leaving excused absence, and then on page two, unexcused absence as passed by the house. And then you are striking the list on page four under section eleven twenty three. Yes. And just, I'll add some language, something to the extent of a student's absence for all or part of the school day for reason, I mean, may excuse the students absence for all or part of the school day in accordance with the model policy. Is that what you're asking?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: In section one twenty four.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That model policy. Yep. And then the model policy, we wanna add language to it that requires the agency of education to what? Related to

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Develop, what do we wanna call categories of excused and unexcused absence. I don't know if categories is the right word. Okay. And shall consider Yeah.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Whether

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The impact if you don't consider the impact

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: The impact of of, yeah, HHP, I think, is the right. I understand. Yeah. And then we agree.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: B would stay at one twenty three. Yeah.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Yes.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So now you're back going back to the keyboard suite. Yes.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Okay, and then in eleventwenty four, BSA and VSBA have recommended changing the policy from review from annually to every three years, we would agree with that. An annual review of a major policy like that is pretty prohibitive for everyone.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm sorry, that is where?

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: It is eleven twenty four, section A, page six. Page six. Page six. Two. Yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, so then we're that would be every three years.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: Yeah.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Every standard would have been.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Every three years. That's pretty typical for these kinds of mitral policies. And then we also agree with the SABSVA that the section, I mean, had, they had said basically remove the entire separate part of that section. We have already discussed it. We think the section that says the policy shall include protocols to respond effectively to bullying and harassment, acknowledging the unique aspects of each case for reentry, that that is actually addressed in a separate part of statute, and putting it in a chronic absence or an attendance bill is not the appropriate location for it. It will actually create some redundancy and potentially some conflict, because now you'll have an absent Yeah. Mine's what? I don't remember this one.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: Mine's nine and eleven. It's actually on page six, nineeleven, twenty eleven. Page six? Yeah, Jill's working off a slightly different copy

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: of the stuff. So you were deleting, on page six, your suggestions to delete, on line nine. So how to show improved protocols to respond effectively to bullying for accident.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: The result here is that you're gonna have an attendance policy that's asking us to talk about hazing, harassment, and bullying prevention. And then we have an entire existing separate statute where we are required to have policies around hazing, harassment, and bullying prevention. And that, those two things don't make sense to have together. So, we, again, sort of emphasize in DSA and DSA are in agreement with us on this that you shouldn't have that line in an attendance policy. We already have requirements to do HIV prevention, and we've actually requested to come in and provide testimony so you have some clarity around what it is that we're doing in those days, which is quite a bit in action.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Weren't we just talking about a few minutes ago having the potential policy that you folks would be drafting include the language of you shall consider how to address gazing, harassment, bullying?

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: In specifically talking about whether or not a category of an excuse absence. Okay. So it's an unbelievable sentence. And this is much broader, the way that sentence there is a broader statement. And again, I don't want to give the impression that the agency isn't doing major work and that we don't have requirements around FHB. That exists in a separate part of Title VI, and we actually have this as a major strategic initiative and would love love to provide you with some testimony of what we're doing, but putting it in an attendance policy is not an appropriate location for that work.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So then would it make more sense to rather than just striking nine to eleven just removing the the phrasing that says that the policy shall protocols to respond effectively, fully in harassment, and acknowledging the unique aspects and to say, the policy shall include protocols for best practices for reentry into education spaces if we're also going to be talking about whether or not it's going to be considered an excused absence?

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: If I can, policies are really high level. They are pressed by the Supreme Court and they really set the stage for obligations, they don't usually paint best practices. So, the school board adopts policy, superintendent creates procedures that are supposed to implement that policy, and the best practices would be part of the toolkit that we would create. So, my feedback on that doesn't have to do with, we don't want to address that. It just may not be, like, appropriate for policy. It may be appropriate for, like, 52 shelf build best practices to address reentry. But, in our opinion, best practices don't necessarily make their way to Tallinn City. I would agree with that.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: And that's aligned to how we structured, like, Act 29 School Safety. Right? The policy is the highest level, and then you have procedures. Right? So, for example, the agency shall develop a model policy for access and visitor control that school board shall adopt, right? And it's a pretty simple document. And then we develop with it companion procedures with superintendents that superintendents then adopt, which is how do you actually implement the policy, and then there are the best practices, the templates and the tools. So there's a hierarchy and statutes right at the top, right? So statute, policy, procedure, best practice, and tools. So we're seeing a little slippage here with some of this language.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: I'm just kidding. You asked the question. I'd like can I

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: ask you to just have them bring up what they want? Well, we you

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: actually you have most of it from PSA. We only had one. Oh, that area where we didn't So

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the question before us is whether we eliminate starting with the words of the policy on one nine down to the end of line. Want to try it on as it is. I think I'm okay with with getting it. I have to think it too.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I agree with that. I agree with Yeah. I agree with him as well because of what they've been telling us throughout their testimony here that it makes.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But then everybody feels terrible. They can all say, we've been going down. Okay. Okay, we'll try that on.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: And I do think that if we have an opportunity to come back and talk to you about what we're doing with HHB, it will actually, it will help to settle any questions because we've got that stress sort of separate. There were only two places where we had a little disagreement with BSA, VSBA, so I don't wanna speak around. I know, like, I feel a little awkward doing it. That's right. The SABSBA had made a recommendation that in eleventwenty seventeen, is that what that

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: meant? Yes.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: They had requested a new last sentence of the truant officer. Shall also request a report from the Department of Children and Families. Jamie, do you wanna speak to why we don't recommend making that change at this point in time?

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: We had worked with the Department of Children and Families on developing a language, and we landed at a notification to them. I'm struggling to cross reference We these right landed on a notification, and I think we would want you to speak directly to them about whether this is even, whether this is possible. Speak

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: to who?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would see.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: And we do also wanna note something that from the very beginning, again, is like an education attendance bill that addresses Title 16. There are other pieces around truancy that sit over in Title 33, and this bill doesn't address those. And so in subsequent discussion, it might be important to make some changes to Title 33, but they're not necessary to actually make these changes at this point. And that's the goal of ECF, around things like education and financial insurance. So what exactly are they proposing,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: 11.7a, that it's different?

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: It was just some reforming language to remove this idea of categories of excluded, abstinence, suicide language. I think they just did

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: some reforming. Which you do not agree with?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. Eleven twenty seven is

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: As they have written it, they're suggesting it.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: I haven't had a chance to actually side by side them, but I don't think there's any substantive there. My take was that it was more conforming language. Okay, I'm getting them wrong. Okay. Okay. But it was 1127B. We recommend that you would want to hear from DCF about whether or not that's even an impulsible recommendation. As we we just received this as well, so we haven't even had a chance to reach

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: out for that. And this suggestion is to add that to the existing, not to eliminate

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Yes.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: One twenty seven being, but to add it as a new last sentence. Mhmm.

[Mark Oettinger (Staff Attorney, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Do want me to actually speak to it?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Sure. Identify yourself with the record.

[Mark Oettinger (Staff Attorney, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I'm Mark Annington, DSBA. The issue was that at the end of 11/26, DCF is mentioned, and that is really not mentioned again. At the

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: end

[Mark Oettinger (Staff Attorney, Vermont School Boards Association)]: of 11.27B, are other steps then if you've gotten to certain areas and it seemed like, well, if you've gone and double checked with some other things, might want to also double check and make sure DCF dealt with their intake or even knew about it. Just double check and make sure, are they doing something? And that was the reason, there's another way to do it, but that was the intent, was just to make sure that that tool was also in play.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So the the concern is that you could make the report that nothing happens when you put down Right.

[Mark Oettinger (Staff Attorney, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Just the rest of the bill was sort of silent just to make sure that if you've gone to the next level of problem, is DCF engaged in some way? And it might just be that they respond saying, we're on it, but it's private. We can't talk about it. That would be but it just seemed odd that it was not mentioned that they they didn't come up against adults. So wait. Was to make You would double check.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. You would also fully.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, there's just a very, very incredibly strict confidentiality laws around child abuse and neglect documentation. So

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: your sense is this would not be super confusing.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: My sense is that someone who works for DCF should weigh in on that. Okay. But as a part of as a part of that back and forth from DCF, you may want to ask if when there is a notification to the centralized intake and emergency services line based on someone not going to school, whether it is a part of their policy to notify the truant officer. Right?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Right. Does anybody know who should have been from DCF? They may

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: be at the house,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: They have somebody from

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: They have two folks from DCF. They're not on the top of my screen.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. That's okay. We can. We can chat.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: And then very unfortunate, I need to head out in just I a just want to say, at the very end of their letter, BSA and VSBA had requested instead of the Agency of Education submitting a written report about the current state of home study and any recommendations. Their request was to reinstate prior law by December, or requirements by December 2026, and indicating that I do not have the bodies of the Agency of Education to actually implement that with fidelity. Part of the reason we actually changed some statute before is because we didn't have the resources to effectively do that. So we are not averse to the idea of taking a look at requirements around the home study, but we really do think we need to have a comprehensive understanding of what's happening in the home study space, just as we've done with special education, just as we've done with kind of all areas of the education system. So, we would recommend that we stick with the language as written. And I I would also just indicate that if you did decide to revert to prior requirements, I don't have the staff and the agency available to actually meet those requirements.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So there's a resource to share. Yeah. So, Patricia, how frequently did those

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: hearings occur? I I know you may not have the exact numbers.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Study hearings? No. We haven't. Yeah. I

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: don't think we've had We study hearings since In the year. '23 or before. Yeah. Since that statute changed. Okay. But I don't know the number that we were having before. Well,

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: the when the statute changed, there were no it took out the hearing after enrollment. And so but I mean before, it wasn't that changed. I mean, how often were people? I don't know if they have been.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: I'm not sure. We have to write it down. We think we could find the information, but it was really like with COVID essentially, we saw a huge surge that essentially opened the system, and we don't have to stop for that anymore. Which is what you're trying to do. As written, we're required to produce a report and be a free family retreat. What BSA and BSB were recommending was a return by December to those prior requirements. So, one is that we actually think a report with recommendations is the appropriate first step. We do not have a strong understanding of what's happening within home study right now. And then at the same time, we also just lack the resources to implement. So, if you required us to do this, we wouldn't be able to. I need to step out. Judy, can you say? I really appreciate your time, so I thank you. I did review what Lunch Council sent over for the amended PC language. Really appreciate it. Pay away some support of what's in there. Thank you.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: K. There's

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: no graceful way to be possessed.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: You know what that'll add to that?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yeah, the yeah. I mean, I think it's I disagree that what was said, you know, saying that AOE doesn't know what's going on with home study, but two years ago, when we took out basically, you know, the entire home study, the whole the requirements and the reporting board. Nobody should be surprised that nobody knows what's going on for the study and that was at their request. It was and there was an inadvertent removal of the hearings after enrollment, which was to say, you know, if there's a removed language, city says, but if there were potentially problems with the home study program, there would have to be some sort of follow-up and accountability. You know, the student wasn't getting any education or, you know, if there were concerns, send to DCF. And so, you know, it's that there has to be something there rather than, you know, a study to come back asking whatever the study is asking for. So, Yeah. I I I would prefer to revert back to previous law that we had for hearings after enrollment. It was in the miscellaneous education bill as I mentioned. And that Miss Bill died.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Actually had a lot of constituents of folks that pushed back against that. So we need to take an. You know, they wanna feel approved for doing a good job and children were meeting or exceeding standards in. So if so if you're saying that constituents who want the the language that's

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: in the bill now asking for a report, or are you saying So same thing as Okay.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yeah. Agree with my parents.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yep. Yeah. If anybody has a question, they they have a hearing saying and then you can prove that you're you're doing what you're saying.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yeah. What what we took out wasn't just just the hearing examiner enrollment. It was also this long list of curricula that people and that homeschool families were sending to AOE. As best as I can recall, a major concern slash complaint from AOE was we don't have the capacity to deal with all of this. So, we cut it out. But while doing so, we also cut out the hearing doctor Roland, the provincial and soft that last mechanism to create some sort of accountability in the event that there's allegations that a student isn't getting any the homeschooling or there are issues with DCO. You're saying that was inadvertent. I believe it was inadvertent when we took out the hearings after enrollment. What we did intentionally remove the reporting which documented the and yeah. As best as I

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: can remember, it's two years ago.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So your suggestions would reinstate the hearing after all?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yes. Just just that piece. I mean, I I do agree with the reporting and and all that stuff but you know, there had, yeah, just just the hearings after.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: You have verbiage?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So why don't we just we've we've got as far as we've got today. We have some changes that we have discussed, but I think it's kind of bad.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And enough to get us for another next draft that we can look at?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Probably next week.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Next

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: week. Okay. Can we incorporate the hearings after enrollment language in? Is that the question? Yes. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yep. We'll look at it. Okay. Yes. Thanks. We'll thank you. Yep. Thanks. Shifting gears, I'm at the PCV, Bill,

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So you wanna have a copy of for me? 4.6. 4Bunches. 423. 924, I guess.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I'll just walk through the changes. Yes. This is doctor Craig with Fudge City Council. On page one in section one, this is the original language which required public schools and independent schools that were constructed or mandated prior to to indoor airflow and the custody for these. The house has eliminated the deadline and, in fact, eliminated the testing required entirely what you have asked for on page one, line 26 to extend the deadline for testing from July, 08/01/2030. On page two, this is that special fund that A and R recommended to be created to be available if money does appear is made available, from one of the several sources that are listed that could then be used to provide the grants for the investigation, investigation, and remediation of schools and PCBs. But right now, doesn't have any money. Nothing is changing to it from the draft you previously saw. On page three, Actually, something has changed. I forgot this. So what when money is available and grants are available, you had discussed yesterday that not only would grants be available if PCV investigations are part of the facility's master plan, but also if the ignored air quality testing of the school is initiated voluntarily by the school district provided that the school district notified ANR of the testings and the district conducted the testing according to DMC's standards for testing. So that was the the to address the concern that a school that never engages in in the school construction planning process would never have the opportunity to get the grant. Now, if they voluntarily initiate and they notify ANR prior to testing and then they conduct a testing according to DPC standards, they would be eligible for a grant. Then on page three, line 15, you wanted language that provided that to the extent that funds are available, grants to school districts that are required to conduct investigation, mitigation, or remediation of PCB contamination in a school shall be in an amount sufficient to pay for a 100% of the cost at the school of investigation, mitigation, or removal. Now that's already in session. That requirement is in session law. You'll see later on in the bill that I I would repeal that session law. It's just moving it into statute and making it more transparent as part of this grant program. But this language is already in session law, already in the school for success in access of the D2C action levels. On page four, in section three, you're now in the, school construction project, construction aid section. And as, Jill and Matt discussed yesterday, they wanted this to be part of the PCB test, be part of this application process. And you will see on page six, line twenty one and twenty two, one of the requirements in your preliminary application for school construction aid is that the applicant's school district is applying for construction aid for a school building that was constructed or renovated for 1980. It has completed indoor air quality testing for PCBs that was conducted according to the DEC standards for testing. So if you're in the master planning process, one of the requirements for your preliminary application is if you're a pre 1980 school, do you have to show that you have done PCB testing? Case seven. Is that all is section section three is not

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: all there. It's all highlighted, but some of it's

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There was a different version of it in a previous draft. Okay. Okay. And so that's why Okay. Okay. If you did you were in Matt's original A and R proposal, they were amending 16 DSA thirty four forty five. That came out in my draft and then went back in after yesterday's conversation. Then on page seven, ANR is still going to report to you under section four an estimate of the additional costs of the state to complete testing and a plan to fund those costs. And then page seven, line 22, going on to page eight. This is the repeal of that session law that you moved into the grant, into the special fund grant program, the 2023 action results number 78, section c one twelve e one and two, they are repealed. That was the 100% funding requirement in session law. And then page eight on five and six, and the effective dates. That school construction application process, that entire section doesn't go into effect till 07/01/2026. So amendment to that, which you are making, you're making the PCB test you know, requirement of your preliminary application, that takes effect 07/02/2026. So this bill is not going to try to somehow modify the effective date of 3445 is gonna be going to effect on July 1, but the change in this bill of 3445 goes effect to basically, that's 07/02/2026. And then I'd recommend changing the title of the bill. Right now, it's about terminating testing of schools in Vermont for PCBs, That's not what you're doing. Have a suggestion. An act relating to testing schools in Vermont for PCBs. Oh, there. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: What?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Matt and Jill have both seen it. They did not ask for any edits.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Ready to go.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: The motion?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Somebody I moved that.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Well, so sorry. As an as an as

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: What happened after with the? Senator Hashim? Yes. Senator Humphrey? Yeah. Senator Ram Hinsdale?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Senator Weeks? Yes. Yes.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't know if this will be referred to appropriations.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: It's

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: one of those with no actual funding in it.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: You probably will.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But it has as a new special fund that relates to funding.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And there was an underlying appropriation.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: There was an underlying appropriation. You're right. And so I could see this kind of probation too. So I'm looking for black part too. I was thinking I would report the white caps and tears of milk that comes out. Anybody interested in this one?

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: That's a team. He's sitting. He's sitting. I'll do

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the absenteeism. I'll do it. Okay.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: My constituents will

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I Heffernan can do it. He's probably the most enthusiastic in his boat. You know? And

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: It's okay. I'll

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: keep that in mind.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yeah. You too. Yeah.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Thank

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you. So I'm gonna go pull the highlighting out of it and send Daphne a pink, pink coffee.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can you help me?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna come up with summary. I might not get it to you until Monday, but

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: I That's fine.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So so if you've able to

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: worry about me, wait again the why I drove my second verse my first

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: That I was.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because 16, they say 34, 45 goes into effect 07/01/2022, and it is an extensive section. And instead of trying to lay with the effective date of that, I felt I felt more confident to just let it go into effect July 1, and then to have that change that you're making, which is relatively discreet in context of the entire section to go into effect on July 2. Okay.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Tell them at Saint James, the Office of Legislative Counsel. Tell them where that effective date lives. Yes. Do you remember how

[Mark Oettinger (Staff Attorney, Vermont School Boards Association)]: that was

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: three. Act Act

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 73. You really don't wanna mess with that affectionate date. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. I've never even I've never seen July 2 before, so You're

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: gonna say it more often. But Sam Flores. Something you've never seen. Alright.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We'll go do that and send that to Daphne.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: That be sure. There you go. So

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: just wanted to spend a little time having a committee discussion. Haven't actually completed because we have bumped Ezra. We haven't completed the walkthrough of the fiscal note with JFO last week. Just why do you get a sense of what people are thinking? We've now been through all of September. We received it. We started going through it on Friday. We received it officially, I think, Tuesday, I just wanted to say. We'll get through it. First thoughts. That's yes Thursday. Yeah. What do people think? We've had it. Taking testimonial year, we've had the one sort of thing we've been working on. Now we have this. What do people think?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is the whole thing?

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Yeah.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, it's a complete discussion, direction. Start or just first try to start writing what up? No. Okay.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Which version? Our version? The War of Nine. Well, it'll be ours after we bring up the It's kinda I think what the chair is asking is, what what major direction it has in front of you? What major direction? Well, we

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we we have the we have the house bill that does the seesaw construct within the some voluntary workers with a facilitator. Have their state aid for construction and construct at the end. What are what are what we don't have to you know, we're not making a decision for this kind of I would just think feel free to think out loud.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, a lot of people watch us. Well, you're

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: in the classroom. When when she started your goal to

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: the villas in the same games. She said, well, I know you guys are planning on striking all, and I heard parts of what's in there that

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I want. Some parts. Okay. Okay. So you got some parts you like, so you're thinking about it. I mean, you know, perhaps some words on it.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Well, then reinvent the wheel.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I don't see it saving the state anyway. I'm not very happy with it for the version that we've been working on. There is some aspects we might be able to pull from it into our bill, but frankly, it's I do not see how it's gonna help with our monitors. I prefer us to keep working.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: K. So if you think

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: we should probably get a bit more clarity and details about CSUS. We have heard that they are the model, but safe by Japanese, it's best to say, but I mean, I want to know, I to see specific examples. And I know we've heard them a couple of times, but frankly, with the barrage of information that we get from everything, it's challenging for anyone to retain every single shift in the media system. Okay. Hearing hearing a getting a refresher about Sisis and the specifics, nuances, how they have worked. There's one in Southeast Vermont. Let's hear about that again.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, so you had actually mentioned, you and I had a quick discussion about having this superintendent.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: Cheryl Charles. Cheryl Charles.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Cheryl Charles. And Sherry Sisa, I think.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Because they've done a CISA for me?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. They

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So let's get so let's talk about getting them both in.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And Jill Graham is the CISA director for the one CISA.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, hang on the one down.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can forward that we have with all of this

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: from Jill Graham.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We want some names of people we want to hear from. Does it make maybe make sense that they do this? We maybe have Beth give us a refresher on that. It's not just her name, refresher of what I see. So it is now works.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: It's Well, same thing as opposed. Well, I got this eventually.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think I I will say I think Beth did a great job explaining it.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: I I

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think the I'm looking at Jill Graham's PowerPoint, and it talks about what do they do in New York and how do they function because, I mean, we're gonna have to either dispel myths or explain to people, like, how they would do special education versus transportation versus

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm thinking the same. I'm thinking

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And their slide

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: deck, that's real testimony is about how they work in practice, what experience people have had with them. Right. Why we thought this, we're just getting pressure on the same day. Yeah. And, so why don't we think about one of the things, spending a good portion of the day next week, and we can get people lined up really fully understanding on the ground how they have to live work. And What the experience has been.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And to I think to add value, these are two supervisory one supervisory district, one supervisory union that are both part of the same CSUP. So they can be really effectively layered on top of each other so that you might have instructional leadership over 4,000 kids and supply sharing and resource personnel sharing across 8,000. So we might I I hope I think what we might hear is that both could be helpful. That's kind of the direction I think I would be interested in going.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, Daphne, are you getting names as we're doing this?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I emailed Daphne the three names and they're somewhat represented in the email I pulled. Cheryl and Susan. Sherry Sousa, Gerald Garel, and Jill Grant. And their PowerPoints that they presented. Yes.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: She's been

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: in here before. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: What else do people think?

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: We just need a ratio of psychic poses to that with the seesaws. So I I fully understand. I'm not sure I need refresher, but our short refresher would be potentially appropriate for both sees seesaws, but I think that if we all agree that both these are a a useful tool for the future that that's a business aspect of education. The leadership aspect of education. I think dovetails right on top of it. Whether it's five, BOCES districts or seven BOCE districts or whatever it is that we've seen over the last year, that they're both it's if you think a business aspect is appropriate, the leadership aspect should be should be imprinted right on top. I don't think there should be two separate entities. And I think, in fact, it would create a bit of conflict on who's making policy, whether it's the the BOCES or the superintendent in a particular district. I think it's it's going to lead to inefficiencies and I think that again, I'm projecting that the if you like the BOCES concept, whether it's five or seven districts, that that's that's what you should be considering for school districts or school SUs or whatever the name you want to use for. To to the extreme of Senator Heffernan's single district that it's It's not extreme. Well, I mean, you're at one end of the poll and status quo is the other end of the poll and you gotta find

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: something in between. Well, that, for me, that still suggests starting with what we just talked about.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, keep it

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: in mind. I just

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: don't think we need a whole day of talking about BOCES. I think we already get the fact that BOCES are efficient.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm not sure I, okay, I'll give away. I don't know that yet. I get the concept. I just want to see,

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: you know, yeah, it doesn't have to be a whole day but show me several examples of, you know, where is the cost sharing happening right now and show me and we also keep hearing, you know, it's improving student outcomes. So, I quickly showing the data.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's. Yes, and I agree, Bill. It's about data. Yes.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I think, I think it's a mindset that we need to start. You know, I think both these kind of takes New York State. What we're creating is gonna be uniquely belonging. So whether it's CSAs or RISAs, whatever you wanna call it, we need to start calling something different than to get people to stop thinking about the system the way it is now because it's gonna change. And I think it's I feel whether it's I think we need to get away from s u's because that connotates superintendents. Whatever we're gonna call them, we need get the definitions now, and then we need to start making this new system. It's gonna be no.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So we have part of it here. And what go ahead.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I don't know this for sure, but here's what I think might be helpful from Beth because as I tried to talk to other senators, I heard that some people believe before that in statute, a supervisory union can't own property. A CISA can't do special education. Like, there's been these interesting questions about what the I mean, don't think that has to be a hard and fast rule. I don't know if it's how we created it or what it looks like nationally, but in that they serve different functions. They also have different roles and responsibilities. And that's where I've run into problems and conversations with folks where they're like, well, a supervisory union can't even do that, or a CISA isn't supposed to do this.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Oh, you know what? Cannot?

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Passive yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: My my guess is they are also they don't use this ratchet and have a little bit of unhelpful.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then does that make sense? Is there some way that it's, like, right now, how we've written, someone could do some things that can't do some yeah. So, St. James' Office of Legislative Counsel, each of these school districts, supervisory union, and BOCES are all creatures of statute. You've all made them up, and you all decide what powers and duties they have. And they all have different powers and duties.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Right now.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right now.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes. But

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: we can transform that, correct?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So I I think you understand, just a quick refresher on that.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I need that, like all

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: three All them are policies followed by these three witnesses, Okay? And then

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: we can take the whole. I do I don't know that we're gonna have the the one way to transform the entire system. That's what we had the whole site before, but we're at the three weeks left and we have to figure out what we're going to do with the two items in front of us and where we're going to reconcile the differences. Once we have a nuanced understanding which we should have by now but it was again putting it on the table of here what the three different entities do and what, if any changes we want to make to either proposal.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the very good news from the PowerPoint that I scanned about CISAs, I think it was Jill Graham's, is she does a cost comparison. Here's what it would cost a school district to do x by itself. Here's what it costs with the CISA.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Can you share that with us? We'll we'll have we'll get it. What

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. I gave it to dad. I think I gave it to dad. So

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Awesome.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So maybe with everything, one of the things we should do next week is make sure we feel confident about what savings are yielded under what models or what future cost curve bending happens. But I do think that's what

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: Vermonters are gonna wanna know from us at the end of the

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and as much as we can get on that. We did have some testimony that supervisory unions do create efficiencies that that cost curves. I don't know if we wanna sort of really hone in on that and know where we're saving money or where we're not saving money. So,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: yeah, I'm picking up. What we're doing is the next building launch, not just what building So what else? Else do we want additional testimony? Are you thinking about? About the state of state?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To the Massachusetts School Building for you.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Gotcha. Give me one second. You. I'll contact the bible. Are you writing that?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. I'm down. That's all I'd be doing. Thank you, Duchess. Somebody's listening. For

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: the bill that we have to, in case we were diving into.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. I think it's I I think we should do that sooner rather than later because it showed jurisdiction with finance. So we should look at that

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And maybe institutions. Closely. I

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: mean, I see This is somewhat of an oversimplification, but I feel like the two main checkpoints

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: are,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you know,

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: the first one being, are we doing CSAs and SUs and SDs or are we doing SUs and SDs with a forced merger in two years? Or are we going to figure out something in between? That's the first checkpoint. And the second being school construction which we spend time on but I think we could be spending some more time on in getting a deeper understanding of what this process will look like and what the outlook is for different parts of the state without a funding mechanism, sorry.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, how are we going do that? How do we

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: get out of that? It's a great question.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I I asked the question to somebody who's on that task force for the redistricting. Did you ever come up and have occasion to say, gee, if we just had a high school right here for MPC. Yeah? Yeah. A couple times. So we could do the same thing with CTs.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I would love to talk about school construction. I just think there are other states that have spent the last twenty years figuring it out. Well, we have not at a state level. So it would be nice to hear what they do because you need a very different set of experts that can help you with traffic patterns and school construction at the actual buildings, not just education policy. Well, mean, think we do have the we

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: do have a plan on how to address school construction kind of laid out in front of us.

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: Later. What do

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: you find?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: And that has the joint talked about you know, the supplemental district spending, the state aid, and the bonding and so, you know, so that's the makings of a plan.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Start with Latin North language and accept free as a supplement. Right. It's an absolute certainty. Right? They don't mention a lot of it. But in fact, I think we mentioned that if a district doesn't spend the money that they get from foundation formula, whatever they have left over is back into the school construction time. But I never saw that freight. They were each 75%. So how are we gonna solve how are

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: we gonna form the the school construction? Because I'm looking at

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: it like, this is gonna be a world class education system. People may wanna come here to partake in it, which means we're gonna have we'll have to make some capacity for more students eventually.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: we'll

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: have John back in and remind ourselves what is in school production and seven three as it is. This get ourselves Get our mindset in. We'll have the person that's just authority. And think about where we want to go. We have the bodyguards in front of us.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm going deep on the tax policy side because

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're not gonna do this.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: I'm just saying

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: that's We're not, have a curvy session. We're not here. We're not gonna do

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this. Just know that

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: That's fine. Very important to me.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Jeff, based on lessons learned from last year at this time, curious if if anyone knows what will survive, the next couple of weeks. Like, and you have more insight than we do on what the majority party will accept as a compromise with the executive branch. I'm just curious. I'd hate to be I'd hate to repeat what we did last year. It wasn't just last year. It was well, in particular Last year. Well,

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we have bipartisan agreement that we would hate to do what we did

[Jill Briggs Campbell (Deputy Secretary of Education & Chief of Operations, Vermont AOE)]: the last couple of years.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So my question is, could survive? What's the compromise? And I know there's all kinds of conversations going on about that topic and it would be a better And I

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: said put out a bill that's gonna survive.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. To to at least understand what the acceptable compromise is all for or where the friction points are as opposed to just getting the entire effort And I'm not to the I'm a favor for change just because just because it's changed. Okay. That's what we have to do with it. Make this survive.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I think we have to figure out we we're not gonna be able to tiptoe around the question of what governance structures we agree on or disagree on, but it's I suspect there may or may not be agreement or disagreement on CESAs and whether or not we follow that idea or whether or not we have forced mergers after two years or if we change that timeline or how we're doing that. So it's, I think the sooner we are able to resolve and determine where people are on these different structures, I I think that's gonna be that that's really the main hurdle.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I think I think we need a decision maker in from AOE in this. Okay. Gonna flush it myself. You know, not necessarily, but at least somebody who can go back to AOE and say, you know, get concurrence or, you know I think

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I disagree with everything they're doing on this bill and the other bill. Well,

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: then If they'll in know.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Would you say somebody saying it would be nice if they they only had somebody

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And they could hear our thinking as we go, and if they have a different suggestion with the big help.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I think it's important because I see them playing a lot to take a role in

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: the governance part of this. I really do. Could be. Yeah. I

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think so although we were looking at setting up a lot for next year's conversation, as I go deep with JFO, I think what's really critical to remain like, the the thing I have to keep in mind is the the tax fairness that we're we're the the tax fairness and the tax certainty that we're trying to bring to people only happens if we set a finite amount of the education fund expense. If, you know, that, like, we should probably look at greater income since Tiffany. Many states are starting to look at how much can people afford of their income overall or their tax bill, for their property tax bill, their municipal tax bill, etcetera. They can go in many directions that affect education policy, right? California, your tax bill can only go up 2%. None of what we do actually will matter unless we say the education fund is a finite resource.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: As in the foundation.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Gonna say the foundation formula, but, you know, whatever these conversations yields that are like two years of talking about CESAs, etcetera, the the foundation formula could drive some of those conversations more than us saying we're getting you a facilitator. I mean, I just want us to be clear that, like, the only way out of the woods is an education fund where we know the exact amount we're talking about every year because otherwise the pressure valve will always be those at the highest end of the home value spectrum and the income spectrum to just fill the rest of the bucket.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: This is this is gonna be it's gonna be a living document. I mean, there's gonna be files and and errors. Mhmm. You know, you know, maybe the funding form is gonna have to get adjusted. But we need to build that resiliency in the plan so that we can adjust it on the slide. Have to.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Right now, the the recent foundation formula schedules the go to a factor of some contingencies. If you think about that, you know, whatever.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. We're doing. So that's a departure from. People were basically, they need what they need, and they get what they want. Need to have all of it with. Alright.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I when we look at, like, the gray matter in our map versus the supervisory needs of. I'm I'm not positive of this, but it would just be nice to to see if there's a way to build flexibility in a different parts of

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: the state for different models.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: A CSO could do very well in Chittenden County because it's an easy place to share resources without making everyone pay the same amount for teachers, etcetera. Like, you know, with leaving some other the factors will have a great cost. So we could look at, you know, choose your own adventure based on what will actually save money and not disrupt your little your ecosystem. So trying to have, like, really flexible thinking about these areas still do know best, what would save money and what is a no go for their communities.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Do we know who's looking at the, like, the teachers' benefits of wage stabilization of this pandemic? Because I think that, you know, we're not gonna see enough savings just to just by cutting out administration. It's gonna have to be you know, there's there's a there's a net equity in teachers. Challenge. Benefits are pretty much standardized because of the hard issue. I think that I think they will they will they will need to flush out the plan out. I think JFO should be Okay.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: JFO is so I think one of the interesting things is, for me, it's hard to separate out education and finance policy sometimes. Right? Like, if we there ways and means put in a piece that says we're gonna look at the cost of living in different parts of the state as part of the foundation formula. I don't necessarily think that's a good idea while we don't have enough housing where people work. Right. So we might wanna understand the new study work of the foundation formula that's been added and what's happening with the foundation formula study, who the consulting group is because it's I think we could I think we need to make sure we know exactly what data we're getting next year and how it's gonna inform our decisions next year. And that was, you know, a big part of what they've asked for and they might wanna ask for different things or be aware of what was asked.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So you wanna, she wanted, you wanna have JF open to pressure us on that?

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What's going on with the foundation formula process and what was added in September? Or subtracted, but I think they, it, I'm I am my my district's biggest thing is saying get a cost of living adjustment in there. It's very hard for me to agree with when I see how far people travel to get to work.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I'll I'll submit again that I think that JFO should be tasked with looking at the teacher pay disparity around the state and see if a simple possible allowance is corrects the imbalances which is the way we do it in business. And I I think that we need to see if there is a problem. Because all I hear is there is a problem and then everybody will immediately want to escalate to the higher teacher salaries and I don't know if that's really a problem and no one's and no one's proved. So, I I again, my request, JFU do an analysis of teacher pay versus cost of living and see if it really is Yeah. On high.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Also, mean, also the reality is the foundation probably the it has x as a starting point and it's applied times y angively and that's what it is.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Right. Get that. And I'm pulling on that. Yeah. And if if stabilizing teachers wages is gonna cause additional spending requirements, probably where we're gonna get the market. Right. That's where they're that's my point of either it is a problem that it exacerbates part of the issue or it's not a problem and we can put that stuff in.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay so we're gonna spend some time next week looking at how CSOs work in concept and how they actually work on the ground and we're gonna spend some time on school construction.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Can I make a recommendation as we go through this? We have somebody designated as scribe to keep track of what we say we're gonna do and then follow through to make sure we do it. I think we do that pretty well. But Yep. I mean, of course, it's all the the advantages is all. So Yeah. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Other other thoughts? And I think your notion that we could have we're do some fun listening. Let's start with getting into having those discussions on CSOs and how they relate to SUs and SVs and then school construction.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you, speaking of just delegation, etcetera, do you have a timeline for a couple of the other bills? I know with H650, the EdTech bill, probably a couple of us are working on language and some of the groups we're working with need to know our time frame.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The only thing I I mean, I guess the only answer to that is the sooner we get it out, the more time there is because the problem's gonna be that's gonna happen. So I'm ready to move our dose as quickly as we can. But I really want I think the chronic absenteeism pill is a critical piece of the solution, and I think I wanna get that out of And he said he's we just did.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You ready for that? Whatever. Give it the time when when when we're ready for the next chapter.

[Tucker St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, start of this the. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Let me. I'll go ahead.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I'll make a my sports analogy. The the house is not fine to fall. House had that bill. Now we've got it. It's the fourth quarter. You know, we had two minute warning. We got to walk. So, you know, it and we don't have a lot of time to get it. Perhaps it's more work. We're gonna do the work we need to fix.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Taking a ton of testimony over the year. We got a lot of feedback when I was built up, And we know the direction they've been headed, and we'll see what we can do. We've got we've got it as you said. We've got it for now two days. Right. So Yeah. We'll we'll we'll go to work.

[Jamie Renner (Assistant Attorney General, representing AOE)]: Mhmm.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: K. Words are.