Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

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

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: This is the Senate Education Committee on 05/01/2006. We are by the way, just for the committee's sake, we'll get into anything. Talked yesterday about meeting Monday. It sounded like eight to ten was the possibility. And if we do it, it's up to the committee that it would be to focus on the at tech build and we have a few witness witnesses lined up. So, he goes remotely and make some progress on what they want. Using the head technology. Yeah. We're using yes. K. I won't be there. Okay. But but but don't have any time. Okay? Do you want to be? Wanna spend well, we yep. We don't. I can. Yeah. They don't think so. Okay. Then we can we can okay. So, we are going to try to quickly go through changes to the miscellaneous set bill then change then changes and possibly a little chronic absenteeism. Bill and why don't we start with the walk through it. Miscellaneous and no.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And and Absolutely. So why don't we do the walk through first just to get us, to get our heads into it. It's kinda busy for.

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

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: We're doing some stuff.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: We're We're some some

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: some We're

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So let's start with the walk, Brittany.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel, we're looking at the miscellaneous bill?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. I did receive an email with some suggested edit. Did you receive that email? I don't remember. Okay. Then let's walk through the draft that's on your website. And there may come a time this afternoon where you are interested in a new draft.

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

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm just signing an exam. Yep. So I have two options for you. Oh, it looks like we only have the strike all amendment posted. Is that what you'd like to work with?

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

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So we had been working with a instances of amendment to H nine thirty one miscellaneous bill,

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: but

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But the

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: more you started adding, the less sense it made to

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: do instances because sections three through 12 of the house passed version were actually deleted sections. So it didn't make much sense to have section three through 12 deleted and then add, start going into the twenties. So we're doing a strike all, which keeps it a lot cleaner. So this draft is 1.1 of your strike all, but the same changes of the last instances that we looked at. And I've put a key at the top of the page for highlighting. So, green is language that the house passed and you have made no changes to, and yellow is new from you, whether that's brand new languages or changes you made to the house language. So, section one came over from the house and you have made no changes to it. This is the exception to the moratorium on approved independent schools for when a therapeutic approved independent school has a change of ownership. It excludes such a situation from the moratorium and allows the application to be processed as normal. Section two, I'm on page two, line 12, also came over from the house. This is Vermont joining the interstate compact for education. You can remember Vermont was a member up until the early to mid 90s, and then they withdrew from the compact. This is us rejoining. I believe we are one of two states who currently are not members, and we have been sporadically, although closer to consistently sending commissioners and paying dues the entire time we were not a member.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So process question, as we go through this,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: are we gonna Yeah, yeah, I was thinking almost that if we don't say anything, we'll say, yeah. Okay. So section one. Section one. Personally, I would I would move

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: to strike the entire moratorium on independent schools. I think the whole moratorium still applies, but that that will be on voting. I I I agree with if we kept the section in, the the laboratory among State. Therapeutic schools, which I believe is in fact. Right. I agree with that, but I think the whole laboratory on

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: that. So what kind of logic? It's the whole section. Well, it's it

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: would be it would it would alter the legislation to remove the entire section of the moratorium on approved new approved independent schools. Line 10 through. I've said that before. Yeah. In other words, the kind of voting point.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Why? It sounds like this is gonna get a bit longer than I would say. Should we just go straight to some changes in this draft?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, no. In the strike, all the yellow sections represent new language from you as compared to the House. They don't necessarily represent new language from the last draft. So, can guide you through what we've done, and that is no changes to section five, the Intercollegiate Sexual Harm Prevention Council, since our last walkthrough.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yes,

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: 18. Thank you. So, there have been no changes to the language. The language in section six, starting on page 23, There have been no changes since the last time we looked at this, but I believe this is the section that you were waiting to get recommendations down on. And I believe you've gotten those recommendations.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I haven't seen them. Oh, I see them now. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I have another draft with editing right now that I've preemptively made those changes. I just don't have it for you in this moment. Okay. Because we just got those. Okay. So, there's nothing to look at there, but I did add the energy contracting language on page 27, so that would be a new section eight. And my understanding is that was just adding to subdivision A1, the definition of cost they could measure and the term addition.

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

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then that is, so that's the only new language for this particular draft?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Cross that question, can we do a straw poll on the the media intersection? We kinda we did it kinda haphazardly yesterday. I just wanna kinda formalize whether we include or exclude.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think that would be The that one sentence that we're talking about. Correct.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Yeah. The one that you email? Correct.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: The one that we had tested for him this year. I think that would be appropriate just to kind of keep all this fair on top of the table, everybody here, full transparency.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: I thought the what we talked about yesterday was the same as, you're talking about this language?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Is it in Europe?

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: And I don't know about that. I I just wanna know what language where Straub was.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Well, with Straub only on the yes. The fact is it's not in here now. We talked about it yesterday. Anyway, you understand what Yeah. Just wanna

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: See if it's gonna go in or not. Correct. I'm for the amen.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: I would be supportive of striking the words with or without amendment and having it be on an issue by issue basis. This is happening now. I think putting in with or without amendment defeats the purpose of having a thought, but all personal issues.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I would okay. What? I would be okay as long as it's an issue by issue. I

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: mean, I also think it's something that, you know, considering it's health insurance and negotiating, it's gonna probably something that needs to put up.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I agree, please.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I just want to do it. Okay. I'm still here. Why don't we leave on the draft? So, let's add that into the do you see the set of

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the I will have to connect with my colleague on this and I cannot guarantee that I'll be able to connect with her this afternoon because I don't know what her schedule is, but I

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: will We're not voting to send today so we're gonna talk about it. Okay. So with that, I think that good. Did you want to do a straw poll on the last section? I think I'm fine. I think

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: we all

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: agreed on that one. The Addison Board addition. Yeah. Form is based on. Form is. The last very last change here. Yeah. I have. Okay. Charlie, why don't you come up for a minute? Back to the. Oh, we're still lost. No. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yes. Was Charlie Lee.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Shelly, you're welcome to. Is that okay? Yeah. Okay. We'll do a little like musical territory situation.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Everybody should pull up the language that we got for this, right?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. It is posted on

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the website under today's date.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I can also share my screen if that's helpful.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: If if you would.

[Mark Kania, Vermont School Boards Association]: Mean. Absolutely.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Thank

[Charlie Gliserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: you for having me. Charlie Blisserman, I'm the policy director at Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I am pleased to report that the Agency of Education and Vermont Network came to some compromise language, which is posted and screen shared back here. The changes that I could report from the last draft are what is underlined. They include the addition of two individuals who serve as designated employees under the gazing, harassment, and bullying prevention policy appointed by Secretary of Education, and clarifying that the appointee from the National Association of Social Workers is a school social worker.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't have too much more to add on the language, but would certainly welcome folks from the Agency of Education, Deputy Secretary, if they would like to speak, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, saw the Deputy Secretary's nodding her head, yes, Morning, comes everyone. All set.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: You have to introduce your thumb, though.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: For the record, is the thumb of Deputy Secretary Chittenden Campbell. Yeah, we have consensus on this language.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, we're ready to get with this change? Okay, thank you. Thanks for the work. Thanks for staying Thanks holding getting us to to agreement on that section.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Perfect. Thank you. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: What bill are we going work

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: on now? 09:30.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Seth Bongartz. Are you intending to come back to 09:31?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, we've got so many, we've people we ask, we wouldn't assist the floor, but I'm kinda late, so we wanna keep moving to- I would just- If we may, yes, if we have time, we will.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Okay, I just appreciate a moment to speak to this. Next. Okay. Appropriate. Okay. Great.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel. So we are gonna look at H nine thirty draft 3.1.

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

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: again, is a strike all amendment to H-nine 30 as passed by the House. You have added the findings in intent section, sections one and two, but we have made no changes since the last time you looked at that language. No changes Actually, we can just skip right to the end.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Yeah. Okay. So

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I've removed the hearings after enrollment sections. So, what was section eight now becomes section seven, the report. And I can see that I should probably amend, I did not do this, but as I'm reading it, I probably should have and can and send out me a new copy. The section heading should probably be amended to take out attendance requirements. It should probably just read Home Study Program and Agency of Education Recommendations Report to track what the changes you made to the substance of the sections, which will now read, On or before 12/01/2026, AOE shall submit a written report to the House and Senate Committee on Education with recommendations for updates to Vermont's Home Study Program law.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's what we talked about yesterday, right? Yes. Yes.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: We pivot to AOE representative to just get an acknowledgement that that's something that there's enough.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The deputy secretary's thumbs up.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: It's enough direction.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You got it. Yeah. And I think having clarification on the goals of the homesteaded community, and we're very clear on what the goals are from our BSA, BSPA partners, EPA, so I think we have some clarity.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And the discussion, I think it did. Yeah. I

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: think we're ready for a vote.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I just want to say, when you take that vote, it's going to be to the, you're going to be voting on the amended version, then I'm to give Daphne with that amended section heading just so that we're all clear. I'm going to call that draft 3.1. I'm to call this draft 3.2.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Motion with reference is 3.2. So we have to leave that we're just Yeah. Actually, it's something because So somebody had to make a motion for I move. Yeah. I move that we vote out draft 3.2 of page nine thirty as amended.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: 3.2. As amended. Sure.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Good. Yeah. We're ready to poke in. Senator Heffernan? Yes. Senator Hinsdale? Senator

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Bongartz? Hinsdale? Yes.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That'll work. Yes. So next we have the deputy secretary, deputy secretary, and testimony to page nine fifty five.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Senator, I believe Zoe was informed that we were running a little bit late, and so, Daphne, is that true, so we weren't gonna start till two?

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: I thought we were running behind, so I gave them a heads up. Oh, okay. Well?

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: Oh, she's she just joined.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: She just joined? Okay. Fantastic. We'll go.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're hanging on for just a second to see if we get our copies.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Can I, I'd like to take a moment and thank you all so much for the passage of that chronic absenteeism and intense support? I just was able to spend the morning at that University of Vermont. They did a community school symposium and they were talking about the University of Texas. This still was the foundational piece that we needed to be able to move the work forward. I will be really, really excited to be back to you in January and tell you all of the work that we're doing to address this issue. But this was really critical. Thank you so much.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We all have hard copies and, Jenny, you have one seat here. There's one seat. There's nothing musical chairs, that's where you go. You have to give a briefing. Yeah.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We all have to get up and like shift chairs for one hour. When

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: the music stops. Yeah, that's right.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, so welcome to both of you. So for the record, we'll start with, on the screen.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for having us. For the record, I'm Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And for the record, Deputy Secretary of Education, Chittenden.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, so however you want to approach it is fine. Sure. Great.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: I'll kick it off. Just want to start by thanking you for inviting us to testimony today. We were very pleased to receive the invitation yesterday to provide testimony on H-nine 55. We did provide testimony. It looks like you now have that as a printed copy. I want to provide you with an overview of what is included in that packet. It is a very robust review of the bill that you have been exploring. It builds upon input that we have previously shared with other committees and have published over the last several months as the House was developing the legislation. It goes into depth in providing the rationale for the agency's position and takes one step further in really articulating a shared path of how we can proceed in order to advance the goals of Act 73. So, we want to start by acknowledging the complexity and the weight of the work and the deliberations underway in your committee. This is a real important time in Vermont's history where we have the opportunity to strengthen our public education system and really achieve the shared goals that we all hold of improving educational opportunities and outcomes for students. That continues to be our North Star with all recommendations we bring before you. The information that we have shared is quite detailed, and it goes into some specifics around proposed legislative language. And we want to pause there and really emphasize that this is us coming to the table as a partner. We know that there will continue to be additional conversations. And what we hope to get out of this testimony today and discussion is to identify those areas where there are some questions, where there's areas of pause that we can really build upon, because we see this as a critical juncture for us to work in collaboration to move and advance the goals of Act 73. Our main points for today, we want to really share with you our critique of the CESA proposal. So, what we will be doing today, I won't be going through a slide deck. I will be walking through some of the points that we have included in testimony and then really opening this up for further conversation so that we can engage in a deeper dialogue. Regarding the main point that we want to share with you is we oppose the CISA model. We have shared that on the record before, but want to take an opportunity to really explain the reason and the rationale behind that input that we have provided. So, with the CSAS, it represents another layer of bureaucracy. It represents another layer of cost. It also really creates redundancy in terms of the activities that must be accomplished. So much of what is described in terms of the CISA are responsibilities that are currently held within the central office of districts. Also, we have strong reservations around the voluntary merger process. We don't see that that voluntary merger process will actually result in the larger districts. It's important to understand and a reminder that the larger districts are needed in order for our funding formula to work and to ensure that communities don't get left behind. So our concern with the CISA model is that it could exacerbate existing inequities within our system in the meantime, and then not result in the larger districts that we know will be important for the viability of operations of districts and to ensure that every student has access to the consistent and equitable educational experiences. The delay in the approach for the CESAs does delay the implementation of that foundation formula. The foundation formula is a really central driver in terms of addressing many of the root cause challenges of our current system where we see great inequity. It also creates increased uncertainty at a time where we need to be providing clarity around the next step forward and supporting the coherence of our entire education system. So within our proposal, the other point that we note is that the Senate passed a budget that really is based upon the policy is endorsing largely with the cost of the budget, the policy decisions that are within H95 because that budget does support some of the funding for the CESA. We want to make note of that because there's some really important policy decisions that are tied to how we fund and resource our system. I want to also note that we have consistently identified the need and we support regional service delivery. So, this is not an evaluation of regional service delivery. We believe that that has a role in the state of Vermont. And even in the governor's original proposal, we had outlined a path where we could still have regional service delivery. Our concern is that that needs to be done after we've made the underlying shifts in terms of how we're structuring our districts. If we don't do that, we're adding another layer on top of an already very complex system of 52 SUSDs and 119 school districts. So just want to be really clear in making that distinction that we support regional service delivery, but not in the way that it's constructed within the bill, which adds another layer on top of our existing system and creates additional cost. There's been a lot of discussion around the in testimony in various committees around the potential cost savings for the CISA model. There's a specific report that continues to be cited for a campaign for Vermont. And I want to be really clear that that research is misapplied. The cost savings that is identified within that report is based on cost savings that will happen within larger districts. I mean, it's really important that we're clear around the data and the modeling that we're using to make those decisions moving forward. So, in addition, so we understand that this committee is contemplating CESA, so we want to be really clear in providing that feedback around our opposition around that path forward. But we want to recognize also what can we do in terms of moving forward. And we have identified five policy decisions that are really important in order to advance the goals of Act 73. Obviously maps are an important component of this and moving towards larger districts. We continue to recommend the movement towards supervisory districts as opposed to supervisory unions. I know that there's been a lot of testimony around the difference with those structures and there's from the superintendents, from business managers, from principals across I the do think that there is large, wide scale agreement around the fact that supervisory districts do allow for greater efficiency and allow for the ability to be more equitable with how we resource the system. So we continue to recommend supervisory districts as the preferred option of governance. We also know that a lot of the conversation tied up into supervisory unions is rooted in questions around local control and local voice. So we want to name that and identify some specific policy choices that we think will help to really lift up the level of community engagement in very meaningful ways within the Supervisory District structure. So within our recommendations, we have put forward a very pragmatic and practical school choice policy that we'd like an opportunity to build upon. Additionally, we would encourage the committee to think about the ability for a school advisory to really help engaging the local community and decisions that are most impactful to the day to day educational experiences of students in the building. And within that process, a key lever is moving towards equity based budgeting. There are several districts across the state of Vermont that have successfully implemented equity based budgeting in ways that meaningfully engage the community, and we have built upon those practices and the policy recommendations that we are bringing forward to you today. So in terms of the main points before we open discussion, just want to really clarify our feedback around the CESAs and then want to walk through some of the components of the school choice policy. I think that is really critical for us as we're contemplating the governance structure and thinking through a supervisory district. So we believe that school choice can be managed through policy as opposed to governance, to why we continue to recommend a supervisory district. And we see that there's a way to do this in achieving the goals of many across our system. So the two goals that we have identified and articulated in our testimony. One, we want to enable students, so students who currently rely on independent schools or a variety of public schools. We want to make sure that those students can continue to attend those schools. And we think that can be managed effectively through an attendance policy and a choice policy. We have also consistently talked about ensuring that there is consistent quality expectations in terms of outcomes when we're looking at the educational experience for our students. So what's put forward in the testimony are really two specific policies that can be enacted building upon existing practices that are already in place in supervisory districts across the state of Vermont. And that is designed to enact districts that actually represent the historical feeding patterns of our students. That's really important as we think about drawing those district lines and requiring an attendance zone policy and an inter district policy. So we have outlined those components of the Choice Policy along with specific legislative language really as a point to be really clear and build upon the path forward. So I want to reinforce, we know this is, a lot of pieces to unpack of this puzzle, but we actually think, there's a really clear line and path for us to achieve these goals, and we welcome the opportunity to continue coming back in front of this committee next week and really going further into some of the details that we have put forward in the legislative language to make sure that we can be responsive to the questions that you have and also come to a place where we can be practical and pragmatic around implementing a strategy that works for Vermont and advances the goals of Act 73. So I'm going to pause there and just see if you've had a chance to orient yourself to the testimony, see if there's specific pieces that you would like us to unpack further in the discussion today.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I might have been trying to read it at the same time, went deeper into it, equity based budgeting, I think EBV gets thrown around. I think I've been on boards, UBM, wherever, where this conversation was a live one. Is is there is there a in addition to the foundation formula, is there a problem we're trying to solve with the notion of equity based budgeting?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: The purpose of equity based budgeting is to meaningfully engage communities in decisions around how resources are allocated. We do have legislative language that codifies the process whereby a school advisory committee would be involved in making decisions around a subset of the budget that is set aside for that particular school. The intention of that is to ensure that those decisions that are being made school by school are truly reflective of the needs and the priorities of the community.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Can you give like an example? Can I? Yep, go for it. So, we, as Secretary Saunders referenced, we have at least two districts right now who do this fairly effectively, and particularly

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Mr. Chair, I don't know what equity based planning I think it would be helpful to take just a few minutes. Exactly.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so, under the foundation formula, you have every student in Vermont equals a certain weight, right? And then based on the student's demographics and other characteristics, maybe they're residing in a sparse area, maybe they are from a historically marginalized community, an economic disadvantage, an English language learner, they would have an additional weight, right? So, with the equity based budget modeling, there's a recognition that you want to ensure that the schools are able to identify the needs for their student population, and that there is a transparent and equitable, fair way to distribute those funds so that those student needs to be met. So one example is in Burlington, and my understanding of that process from having meetings with them is that they have their overall budget, and then within that, they have a couple of different ways that they do this. So one is they do have a certain amount of proportionality, which has really clear parallels with, say, how some of our federal title funds get distributed. It's proportional to economic disadvantage, ensuring that the dollars that are generated by the students aren't getting driven to that school community to meet their needs. So, they have a transparent policy around proportionality, right? And then, in addition, to ensure what Secretary Saunders was referencing, this real local engagement in voice, they also have a portion of those funds, and I don't want to get the percent wrong, but I feel like it's like 10%, and I would encourage you to read the scripture about this, where schools are actually, I think they sort of call them innovation money, right? Where the schools, working with their local community, are able to identify maybe some projects or innovation or programs that they would like to run based on the needs of that community. And they're co developed with families, students, educators, and it's sort of their, they have a much higher degree of discretion over those dollars, and then they have a cycle of evaluation, I think, every two to three years to see if that program is actually going to be the services they want, do they want to advise it. So, example. What we're identifying is that we think it's important that as we move to a foundation formula in larger districts, that you actually have codified in statute some requirements around that process. So that would be our suggestion. It's not that every district has to do it the same, but that they have to have a transparent policy that has authentic engagement with their school communities and help them improve. Does that answer your question? Yeah. It's my

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: question actually. So I just want to make sure, let me try to repeat back, because I think you already understand the concept. This is a new concept.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think the term gets used a lot and we define, you know, people don't call it equity based budgeting.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So hypothetically, notionally, percent would be held. I think the district could pull back 10% to be redistributed at with their priorities as they see it. Is that kind of so it's how would it affect the foundation formula if you have English language, you know, etcetera, etcetera, and all the way special education stacked on top. This is 10% of the toll removed to the side to be used by at the principal level, superintendent level.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It could be directly. And, actually, I'm just recognizing this, Jamie, you have some version of this in your own district, right, where your school communities are able to sort of identify some of

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: their needs and outcomes. I was hearing

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: from your white rare folks. So, would you care to speak Yeah, to go ahead. Yeah. So for the record. Sorry, Jamie, literally was speaking to my team on this this morning, I was like, we have a specific I

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: know. I know.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Let's pay back for how you see.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Better than you see. For

[Jamie Kinnarney, Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union]: the record, Jamie Canemery, superintendent

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: of schools, White River Valley Supervisory Union.

[Jamie Kinnarney, Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union]: And, yes, so I think what the deputy secretary is talking about in regards to how we do our community schoolwork, in regards to our distributed leadership teams as I think

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: probably what they were referencing,

[Jamie Kinnarney, Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union]: which we are how we work to distribute leadership at the building level, principals, teachers, support staff, parents can engage in regards to what their priorities are in alignment with our strategic plan or need of the school, and then that is incorporated into our budgeting process.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So it's not a straight formula based on like number of kids you get X percent, it's actually based on some needs that are elevated by the local security.

[Jamie Kinnarney, Superintendent, White River Valley Supervisory Union]: Absolutely, and that drug, it's zero based budgeting,

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: right, in regards to how we go about it.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: I think the

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: answer is there's no one way to do this, but what we're identifying is that under a foundation formula, and you're right, it's just you get your block amount to the district based on the number and characteristics of those students, and some other things like geographic as far as the small schools, that could be. Is your chunk of change, a $100,000,000, whatever that may be. But then within that, having a very clear and transparent policy by which those funds are going to be distributed, such that they are reflective of the needs of your different communities, and have real opportunity for local engagement and voice. Our contention here is that this is actually a more authentically engaged process than what we may do in our budget development today, where we maybe have 12% of local voters voting on top of the budget.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: Yeah. And also this is a shift in how we think about local control. So currently within our practices, it's around getting approval around the budget amount. And what we know is happening is that's resulting in great inequity across the state, meaning that we have great variability in terms of per people spending depending on what district approves and how they approve their budget. So, it's a shift in thinking where we as a state have identified the amount of funding we know will be able to provide an exceptional education. And then it's allowing within the districts that local control, spending the time focused on how to spend those dollars in ways that are going to be most impactful. And what we continue to hear from communities because this is a different process is a real question and call to understand the ways in which community members will be meaningfully engaged. And so we have really canvassed across the state to look at districts of these compelling practices that we know really do generate meaningful input. And as the Deputy Secretary indicated, there are multiple ways to structure this. We would want to put forward a specific framework for that to occur while allowing for flexibility of districts to manage that in ways that are going be most impactful to their communities and give transparency to how those dollars are spent in ways to generate opportunities for their students school by school.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So one could say that offers some budget transparency even if you're not voting Yes. On your school budget. Yes. Absolutely. I don't I I sorry. I

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: have to

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: look at the whole document. So I'll just say, like, I've been going around. When I talk to folks, I just have a few numbers in my head that I I could be wrong about or, you know, it was just like a kind of Google search. But, you know, my understanding is the average school district size in the country is 5,000. And the mean school district size so, like, when you take out New York and Boston and all that, the mean school district size is 1,500. So I'm not trying to say that that is necessarily a best practice, but all all the other states in the country have a foundation formula. I know that Massachusetts, that's number one, has school districts that have about 3,000 if you take out Boston. So those are the numbers that I've had in my head of just like if it's good enough for the number one state in education, if it's good enough for a lot of other places, that's a pretty good range. And once you get bigger than that, you get just a geography that wouldn't be the best practice in in the country. Think the geography and the square mileage becomes a really big question. And so most school districts in the country are not more than something like I don't wanna get the number wrong, like between four and five hundred square mile at the at the higher range. So I just don't know why we keep coming back to the four to 8,000 number again. So we do wanna speak to that?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: Yeah. And we'd be happy to resubmit prior testimony that we shared regarding the district size, because you're right, there is going to be variability across the country, and there has been a lot of research looking at district size. There's two pieces to really take away from the research, is that there's an identification of what's really too small not to achieve scale and what's too large where, the scale is, kind of lost in terms of the opportunity. And so, everything we've recommended is within the bookends of the research in terms of what is a district size that is effective operationally and can generate those quality outcomes. The specific enrollment parameters that we put in place and have recommended, because it's tied to research that is related to the foundation formula. So, within the foundation formula, we identified the key educational objectives. What do we want to make sure that students are able to benefit from in their schools? What are those resources that need to be in the system that are based on research and identify the conditions necessary in order to support, highly effective teaching and learning environment? And that research was based upon the numbers that we've put forward at that, baseline number of 3,900. And so as we've followed up, we've also shared some additional modeling that was done. If we move below that number, we can reshare that testimony. There's certainly scale that you can achieve at 2,000 and at 3,000. But again, all of this comes with different choices. And I think that's important as we make these decisions in defining these parameters, because it is a series of choices that need to be made if we make adjustments to those parameters. So, we can also, I think would be really helpful to follow-up and dive deeper into that testimony. And I think it's a good conversation to have. But ultimately, we know scale is important, and what you're highlighting is there can be variability with successful systems. But we're really connecting all of the pieces together. So, we're thinking about the size of the district relative to the funding and relative to what that funding can actually support in terms of educational offerings. The lower that you go, and one of the key things that we looked at in our analysis is the lower district size. I think below really 2,000 was where we had trouble in actually achieving those teacher salary increases, right? So, at every point that we make these adjustments in terms of enrollment, there are real opportunity costs that we have to quantify, and there are choices to be made around what the legislature feels is more important.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, I think part of what's always is, Secretary Saunders, sorry, we can't. We're so fancy in this room. Part of what we're pointing to is that when we were looking at these numbers, it didn't happen by accident, and I can't emphasize that enough. We started with the stated educational goals, and then we identified what size of district is necessary under our foundation formula to be able to achieve those goals. So, you can go smaller, but you are not going to You either actually do one of two things. You have to increase the amount of funding, and at a certain point, no amount of funding is actually still gonna achieve those goals. You just have a scale issue. Right? And I think we can probably all picture C districts who are never going to be able to have, just because of size, offerings and the equality standards that we've spoken to meet. Right? So, you either have to increase your cost, or you have to decrease your opportunity for quality. And that's just the math, right? So, when we started from the goals, and we reverse engineered backwards to what are the conditions necessary, that's where that number came from, and it's based on research that's been around for about thirty years at this point. So to your point, Senator, there are a lot of different district sizes. I don't know that we would say any of them are best practice. We have to have some criteria by which we're evaluating that, but we arrived at four to 8,000 in a very specific and deliberate way. And we've done the modeling that shows, as secretary Saumas just pointed out, at 2,000, you can still get a lot of the things that we're aiming for. When you drop below that, you're going to have to, and again, what she's talking about is choices, and who's making those choices, in the communities. You're getting this amount of money. We have really clear standards and quality goals we're aiming for. What choices are you going to make as a community? They're going to get increasingly painful as you get smaller. We're seeing that today. Could you address the square mileage question? I was just seeing that Massachusetts' largest school district by area is in the Berkshires, which some consider the Vermont, Massachusetts. That largest school district is two fourteen square miles. I think the Lemoyle District that was proposed in some version that wasn't even I don't even know if it was a one, you endorsed or a smaller one, but that was about 600 square mile. So I do see that there is at least a recognition of the geography as important to that fact, we're the most rural state in the country. So can you speak to your understanding of square mile coverage?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: I think when we start to look at square mileage coverage, it prompts conversations around how to organize staffing. And so, within a larger geography, there would be importance to have some regional leadership. And there's models that we have put forward as to how that can be structured. In some states where they have a larger geographic coverage, they may have a regional superintendent or a regional director assigned to that part of the district. And then also typically those Regional Directors would also be responsible for an area of expertise. So, let's say one Regional Director is involved in the southern part of that district and is the expert around professional learning. So, they would be responsible for professional learning for the district, but have a real understanding of the unique operational needs of that particular region. So, when you talk about geography, it really prompts conversations around how to structure staffing, leadership, and support. And that would be important considerations. And we, have looked at those different models of the best ways to structure them.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Heffernan.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: So you know my concept. And what aggravates me with this is that everything we talk to her, from Senator Hinsdale's worries to everybody else's about size, that if we do a one unified system, now you can take the time, because you're talking about school advisory committees, which that's how I address the equal control, because you are to a foundation system. As you need to say, Hey, I need more administrators here because of terrain and less here because of student population, that it gives us the state so much more flexibility. It takes away all the- we start talking about the legalese to combine districts. We're gonna drop our districts down to half, is what we're hoping out of this committee. That only temporarily fixes a problem maybe five, ten years down the road where we're gonna have to shrink again. And it means all that cost and all this argument is gonna happen again under this roof. I just, I get, I know some of the reasons because of pay, and it'll take a while to get everything scaled to measure, but I do not understand under this dome here why we're a small state, we're, you know, we're a declining population, and how we, why that wouldn't work better. As you need more administrators who have them, and as you need to lighten them up, they go away. You combined all your services, you combined all your specialty, and just, why isn't that gonna work? Why haven't we been pushing that? Because everything you talk about, you know, nobody wants to draw lines in here. Mean, nobody. Somebody feels they're gonna be left out. And, you know, my colleagues and I get very frustrated that we get nowhere. And answer that, if you would, please. No problem.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I'm telling you, I'm kick it over It's for

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: very agitating to be in here and listen to all the problems. It's like, Do you realize how we can solve this by being able to move an administrator? And, Oh, hey, Burlington only needs one, because one person has to handle five principles compared to where another administrator, he might only have two or she needs, because of the area so much further apart. But yet, we all can share any and every aspect of the work. I know the Annie Hayes not a big fan of it, but, you know, it's what's right for Vermont. And that's, we're getting very blown off some steam. Sorry, but

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Fair questions. I

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: would say the recommendations that we're putting forward are consistent with the parameters established in Act 73. It's fair to point out that there are districts across the country that are larger than the entire student population in Vermont. That is true. What we have put forward here is really a balance. I think what we're operating is there's a healthy tension here, between freedom and unity, right? And so, what we're describing are there's some statewide clear expectations that are really important and some regional statewide service delivery. And then the opportunity for those districts who also have the local connection and be able to lift up those nuances of the community. So, all of the recommendations we're putting forward are really within the construct of Act 73 to develop within those parameters because that's where we've been able to create the interconnection between the quality funding and the governance decisions that

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: Well, you've got to give us lots that everybody can handle, because that's what we hear in this committee every day, that the lines aren't working. The lines aren't working. Yeah.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, So I think the sorry.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: Yeah, I just That's what we brought up against. And concept and what you put out is great, but nobody wants to draw the lines.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. I think we agree,

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: like lines are really challenging to draw, right? This is representing a fundamental shift in how we deliver education in the state of Vermont. We have put forward two maps within the testimony. These are maps that we have previously circulated and they build off of prior work. One is building off of some of the initial framing of Redistricting Task Force to move towards districts that are organized around regional high schools. The second map is building off of the House proposal, which has expanded those boundaries to better encapsulate the current feeding patterns for schools. We think that as this work has evolved, that the House Version four plan is more in keeping with all of the goals that we have set forth and better organizes to account for those traditional feeding patterns of where students actually go to school. So, as we've gone through this process and we've listened to feedback, that's a map that we believe is a really one to look at and to examine and to take seriously. But we recognize that there are going to be some community nuances and that it is late in the legislative session. So the other proposal that we've brought forward today in testimony is to have a time period of a year after these districts are drawn to, on a case by case basis, evaluate if there need to be any changes to which SUSDs are part of this larger district. And we would need to be really clear around the parameters for that to ensure that we have that the funding would work, equitable tax base, that it's diversity in terms of the student demographics and all of the parameters that we have outlined. But we recognize that there may need to be some adjustments to that. So, we've put forward, I think, starting point for a conversation around how that could be structured for communities to go through that process, evaluate it according to a rubric of the criteria that are established, and allow the state board to review those appeals for what adjustments may be needed within those district lines that are drawn.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, Senator Heffernan, to your sense of frustration, our role at this point, as it always is as the Agency of Education, is to support the implementation of the laws that you passed. So, you all passed Act 73 with some very clear, well founded parameters around districts. And what we're trying, and then there's been sort of a stall out, right, of how to actually finish the work that you started. And so, goal here today is to show you that there's actually, once you have those parameters, there's only so many ways to slice the pie. And so we're bringing forward to you two ways to slice this pie. We have a preference for the one that we've linked here that's called house version four, because it actually aligns very closely with the choice policy, because we also know that school choice has been another major stumbling block to complete the work. So, just to sort of clarify, that is what our goal is as the agency of education. It's not to relitigate the laws that you've passed, it's to support you in implementing them. We're recognizing that for a wide variety of reasons, it's very challenging to get across the finish line with the next step in the law that you directed yourselves to do, right? So, I'm wondering if we could take a little bit of time to actually look at the choice policy, because it goes hand in hand with the districts. So, the two things need to work together, and it would allow you to also move towards supervisory districts, which I think you've actually heard some very clear testimony from your Vermont Association of Business Officials. I read that the testimony that was sent over. These are the experts in the field that manage the budgets every single year. They're quite clear on the challenges of supervisory structure and the barriers of a supervisory structure to to achieving education and public integrity. So we want to support you all in getting to the Supervisory District construct and meeting the needs of the school choice policy. Thank

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: you. I guess two things to comment to an earlier comment made by my colleague. I think that exactly we should be a little more careful about framing the perspective of the whole committee as something that's already been agreed upon like.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: No, we haven't agreed on anything.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Right. Earlier, you you had mentioned that the committee agrees on reducing all the districts by half.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: No, no. I'm sorry. That was with the map. It's my apologies there.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Wanted to make sure that's clear for you. Yeah. People, the public that might be listening. It is an impactful thing. The other piece, totally different topic regarding the inter district budgeting or the equity based budgeting. I just wanted to clarify the differences between what has already been put in the bill and graph one. One is on page 65 and that has passed by the house. It's on page 58. So, it looks like there's already that the equity based budgeting is already in here is the proposal to just add more clarification of what the school boards will do and creating that four year review process on top of what's in there.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think, I think what we're actually seeing is a broad consensus around the need for equity based budgeting because it was also in our original proposal last year. So H-four 54 was the original submitted, it had the same language. So I think the difference is that in H955, it is embedded within a construct that we find in mental cases the wrong regression. Is the concept, do we have consensus around the concept? Yes, I think that we do. So, I'm less concerned about maybe any nuances or differences between the two, and more So, there's a broad recognition that equity based budgeting is a way to ensure that, number one, the resources are going to the right schools, right, the right communities, right? And then the second is that it's an opportunity to increase local engagement. So, we can look at some of the differences, but I think fundamentally, it's embedded in policy that we think is heading farther. But let's acknowledge where we have consensus, right? A win. Have consensus around this.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: Yeah, absolutely think that is a win. And I appreciate the question because there is real consensus. When we move to this foundation formula, it is designed to promote equity. And so, we need to make sure we're really clear in specifying those processes and the parameters. I think another distinction of what we're suggesting is that there be an explicit role for school advisory committees in that process and allowing for the input and the voice at that level of the school to really be involved. Right now a lot of that is being performed at board level. So what we're saying within larger districts, we wanted to make explicit that there's this particular structure, this particular forum and opportunity for parents and community partners and students to be involved with the budget decision making for a portion of the budget that's allocated to their school. So I think that's just another piece of this as we're thinking about how to operationalize it and what needs to be in place in order to truly facilitate that level of engagement on the ground for each school.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay. Yep. Question.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I think I'm version I clicked on the link that's in your testimony for the MAO. At first glance, didn't look that different than your supervisory union map, your combo map, except the gray area with that. I don't have it here right now. Would you qualify that as fairly accurate that there was converging consensus on some does somebody know? Well, maps I'm trying to cover think probably the supervisory union map was reflective of historic attendance patterns, would be my assumption in some ways. Right? This map in a supervisory district construct is deliberately built to be reflective of historic attendance patterns with the choice policy. So the two things go together. Right. And it allows you to get to a supervisory district as opposed to the supervisory union plus supervisory district combo that you were working with. So I don't think it's an accident if there's some overlap because what we're trying to do is combine attendance patterns and a choice policy. So with that, I actually then switched over to the CTE region map. It looks different. And I think what it when I look at it and it has the number of students in each, it it really highlights that the districts with the larger number of students are the ones I hear a lot have wait lists or people getting denied from HVAC programs or what have you. So I'm worried about the whole map conversation once again leaving out the CTE centers and districts because I really want to say I can't say this is half our kids. This is half our kids who are not going on to a two or four year degree who need another type of education. Yeah. And I don't see anywhere once more how we are trying to think about them being part of a district or not part of a district. Right now we have, you know, denials and wait lists in our more populated areas. What's happening? Yeah. Secretary Saunders, do you want to speak to this? Because we share your vision for this.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: Yeah, we absolutely. And I think the entire General Assembly shares the vision to expand access to Career and Technical Education. As you know, we did put forward a proposal to move to one single governance unit for Career and Technical Education with the explicit intent to expand access and make that universal. So, we recognize now and we have done that mapping of where we see the largest wait list. And we want to ensure that there is that statewide review and oversight so that we can actually do some intentional work around budgeting to improve different lab space and programming in areas where there's high demand, and also to push in to high schools. So, high schools that have classroom space available. The Education Service Agency would be responsible for developing that curriculum to ensure that we could offer those type of programming in high schools where you may not need as much of a space for welding. Like other programs may be able to be situated within high schools that currently have classroom space available, and similarly within middle schools that have the space available. So, our intention is for that education service agency to take the statewide view and be able to apply strategically the resource allocation to ensure that we're developing where we need to, and that we're pushing into high schools and middle schools to offer those opportunities. Also, we've put forward two different ways to fund Career and Technical education. And it is really important when we talk about expanding access that we're really clear about funding and resourcing the system. So, we've put forward a weighted approach. We've also put forward a suggestion of a line item appropriation and have suggested that either route that the legislature goes, that we're intentional about resourcing the system and would hope that out of the JFO study, there is clarity around how we will achieve the intent language in '73, which is to expand access to career and technical education.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so, I think what's important to know is that the agency's approach has very consistently been a comprehensive one. So, Senator, to your point, we have a CTE proposal, and we are thinking about, even though in this building they get split off into different committees, right? And so you may not have visibility on the whole system, but the agency's proposals are reflective of a Pre K through, all the way through 12 system that includes CTE. So what we're saying is, overlay on this map a single statewide education service agency, you're familiar, I think, with our proposal here, that is specifically designed to reduce those barriers that you're talking about, and Senator Heffernan's I didn't know if you were gonna remember Senator Heffernan because I don't know how you solve any regional problems with the statewide CESA. It just sounds like you have no Then you have no organizational system. Like, how do kids get out of Chittenden County to another CTE just because you have a statewide CEFA? Yeah. There's a couple other pieces of

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: this puzzle that are underway. So, we always talk about quality funding and governance. And so, the quality side, we're already making progress and really being explicit around how we're ensuring universal access to CTE. So, we have put forward statewide graduation requirements. We've put forward those recommendations to the State Board of Education. Those recommendations are really clear around the role of CTE in our system and ensuring that there is consistency transfer between sending schools and career and technical education centers. Additionally, within Act 73, there's the directive to move to a statewide calendar. That statewide calendar is important as we think about organizing professional learning. And also, as we think about the logistics around students being able to access different CTE programs, right? Sometimes a barrier, the logistics around scheduling. So, are two pieces from a quality lens that are in place to support this. Additionally, are putting out some really clear recommendations as we work with the field to define the criteria for evidence based curriculum, high quality instructional material. We're doing that in a way to look at grade level content standards in alongside an understanding of those, career competency skills that we want them to develop. So, on the quality front, there's a tremendous amount of work, that is in place to achieve that. On the governance side, governance is ultimately around how to resource the system and to achieve scale. When you talk about the scale of CTE, the states that take a regional approach like we're suggesting have similar enrollment as we do in the state of Vermont. That's by design because that's how we can achieve scale in terms of resourcing the system. So, one single governance unit allows you to apply the look at the Perkins dollars and really think about you would distribute those equitably based on the needs of the entire CTE system for the state. It also allows for some clarity around managing what have been some of the recent disputes in terms of the type of coordination that's happening in terms of attendance requirements and things like that between sending schools and the CTE. So, there becomes, within this Governance Unit, real clarity around those consistent policy and procedures. And ultimately, of this is related to how we can best utilize the dollars to deliver on our significant investment in education. And so, we've done modeling based on some assumptions that we've made clear around the funding. Note that JFO will still finalize these funding recommendations. And we've looked at that to actually organize how the staffing would look. So we've put forward some sample staffing matrices of how this statewide delivery would work for CTE. Much of our recommendations are built upon some of the effective practices of states that are similar to ours in terms of our rural nature and so forth. And our CTE Director has been very involved in working with her counterparts in other states to structure that approach. And we think that it really does address a lot of the barriers that we've identified, that we've analyzed and examined over the last several years, and allows us to move into a system that has more consistency in terms of quality and programming opportunities across the state.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Chair Bongartz, I'm wondering, I know we don't have unlimited amount of time, what are some questions or areas that you would all I think just I would encourage folks and we'd be happy to come back in and dive in more around the Choice Policy. I think it's really important that folks understand this has been we've been listening to the conversations in this committee and in house education committee. We understand that this is a critical barrier. We have a very practical

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: solution to this. Yeah,

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: so Zoe, would you like to just like-

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: Yeah, and I was just going emphasize that same point. I think this has been a partnership with the General Assembly over the last two legislative sessions. And we recognize that the original proposal that was put forward by the governor was too restrictive in terms of the choice policy. And so, the evolution that you're seeing is really response to the feedback and the desires that we've heard. And it represents what we think is a very practical pragmatic solution. And I think the key part of this is really recognizing those students that continue to rely on independent schools will be able to continue attending those independent schools. Students that currently rely on a variety of public school options will be able to continue relying on those public school options. And the reason for that is that we've been really intentional around thinking about the structure because the district lines should be representative of where students go to school. And we then looked at, and we still believe that it's really important to move to Supervisory Districts because that's the most efficient use of governance. But there's a lot of questions around how will that work when we have a variety of different school options. So, we looked at some of the policies that are already in place in Supervisory Districts that are common practice, including attendance zone policies and inter district choice, along with high school choice, which is already part of our system. So, what we've been able to outline is we've taken the four areas where we currently have school choice in the Vermont system and are identifying that we can maintain those options with some very small refinements as it relates to the larger districts. And I think a couple other pieces that have been questions would be, ultimately, we want to make sure that every student has a home or homes, right? That they have an education that they can access. And we need to be practical in mapping out that solution. So, we think that this approach we're putting forward really achieves that purpose and is realistic in recognizing where students access their education and ensuring that that can continue and be strengthened through this approach.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, if you look at these two policies together, right? So, the first one is the enrollment and attendance zone policy, and that's what Secretary Saunders was pointing to. What are the, if you look through every sort of each subsection, what are the current attendance patterns? And this is in essence preserving those. Right? So not making the change there. And then the second policy is really taking what are existing practices, that's the school choice policy. So the first is actually just where do kids go to school and preserving what already exists. And then the second is that every district needs to have some policy around within that district, how are you managing students who may be attending one school and want to go to another. This happens, it's really important to emphasize this, every single day in our district, right? There's what is called hardship clause, right? There's, you know, a parent can request, because they are working in Burlington, that their child attend a school in Burlington because that's where they're working, And they won't be able to pick them up. Or in the cases of hazing, harassment, and bullying, where the student is determined that we sort of can't come to a good resolution for that student, that student has an option to request to attend a different school. These are practices that exist right now. And then we're also pointing towards a pretty exciting future state, where you might have public schools that become mad at, and if anyone had a chance to watch the press conference yesterday, Mr. G was sort of pointing to this ideal kind of future state where you would have more than one high school. Was Mr. G, who's a teacher at in Northfield? Northfield. Northfield. He's fabulous. I I recommend these debates.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: He does Walking Wednesdays, I would Walking recommend Wednesdays to school with a group of students. It's a wonderful community building activity.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: If you have a large enough district, you may have more than one high school in that district, and those schools can start to create their own identity. You could have this high school that is known for performing arts, and kids within that district, I always talk about this is finding their jam, right? You could have the kids who are really into STEM, and you'd have a school that's really specializing in some advanced programs and offerings, right? That is addressed in the school choice policy, right? And, you know, we're always kind of cautioning, what do we mean by school choice? The first policy is attendance. Where do kids go to school? Second is choice. And so when you layer those two on, you're really covering the universe of what we need to establish, and then you have districts of sufficient size and organization that align with this policy. And that's what we mean when we say, you don't have to solve school choice, I'm air quoting it, through complex governance structures. You can actually solve it through policy with appropriate things on the resource.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: I want to acknowledge that this has been a real sticking point right in the conversation and it can often be a very polarizing point. I think what we're bringing forward here is in recognition of the realities on the ground and the reality that we want students to have exciting options and opportunities, and that they can take advantage of programs that are really exciting for their learning. So, all of that is mapped out in the proposal that we think is really practical, very much reflective of current practices that work, and puts really specific parameters on how we can help preserve choice and also to strengthen the overall quality of the district, right, as kind of one unit when we move into a single governance entity. And when we talk about choice, we're also talking about options, right? So in this future state, you're going to have schools that are offering multiple programs. So they may not even be a separate school, but they may be a separate magnet program within the school. And we want students to take advantage of those opportunities just like we want them to take advantage of CTE pathways. All of this is part of our larger effort to really deepen the learning experiences that students can access in ways that are aligned to their passion, to their interest, and that set them up for success after high school. We did put a lot of details in this policy and we did that intentionally because we've been listening to what are the questions, the what if, and how would we manage X, Y, and Z. And so, attempt in this testimony is really to respond to all of those questions. However, we want to recognize that we may not have gotten all of it right, right? And so, what we hope is that this really serves as a very clear and detailed path forward, and that we can look at the specific items within that proposed legislative language that may give you pause or that you might have questions about. We really want to center those future conversations around those particular areas because we want to be a partner with this committee in identifying solutions that are going to work, that are going to be feasible, that are going to strengthen our entire education system and reflect the realities around how we deliver education in Vermont. We want it to be practical as well.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Rutland. So

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: speaking of reality, we have four more days to get this bill out. We when we looked at any configuration of districts, we got significant pushback that I think would not result in a bill that could be passed in the House or the Senate. I'll just I don't know, four days, so I'm just putting it out there. If we cannot get districts in the next two to three years, you have the house that has advocated for larger CESAs. You have our chair has put out a map that has a combination of districts and supervisory unions. What do you think is the next best step for us to move towards equitable and fair system with four days left to decide how we move forward.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: I think I want to acknowledge I understand that this is a really challenging decision within the committee and the legislature and it comes with great complexity. I think this is part of the reason we're putting forward this concept of moving to Supervisor Districts, but allowing for that year to really make refinements that are required in order to your point Senator Ram Hinsdale to really reflect the realities of the ground. There may be nuances that cannot be picked up right in the next even if you had more than a couple weeks in the next month. But that really could be fleshed out over the next year within communities. We would need to be clear on the parameters. Want to really remind us of the connection between the districts and the funding. So, having clarity around moving forward with the districts is important to inform the study that JFO is completing. And so, what we've been able to share is that there are choices that can be made around moving to smaller districts than were put forward in the initial parameters of Act 73. We would want to make sure we're articulating what those opportunity costs are along the way. So, what we would advise and what we think is really helpful is looking at this district proposal and thinking about how would a refinement process over the next year help to support, the concerns I think that you're raising is that there hasn't been as much time, within these committees to engage around the specific lines. And I would argue a lot of that work would actually have to happen in communities and in conversations with communities, not just in committee with the legislature. So, that's part of what we're bringing forward today as a little bit of a difference in what was shared earlier is recognizing that there may need to be some adjustments, no lines are perfect, that there would be a process and case by case to review where there may need to be some shifts. I often would also note that some of the criticism around districts is disconnected to funding. So, I think once we really connect the district decisions to funding, it is a different conversation because it ends up being about opportunities for kids. And that's why we keep coming back to that connection. So, we would be really interested in exploring that path with you around what that 12 period would look like in terms of refining the lines that are drawn. I think those lines again are important to the study. So, any continued delay could potentially delay the results of the JFO study and could, depending on how districts are configured, could add more cost to the system. So just something we need to be really mindful of.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Senator Hashim. Thank you. Am I probably misreading this, but am I picking up that there is from the AOE that there's more of a preference for what the Senate has been contemplating with its policy changes as opposed to what the House has been contemplating? What I'm referring to is the this two year voluntary process of merging to provide more time to figure out what the future lines might look like with the SUs, which I know is different than what you are proposing with the school of the union districts, but is that what I'm gathering or am I misreading this?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: He might be. Okay. Alright. He might be projecting.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: Think we can appreciate that the committee is Because putting

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: we have four days.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: I can appreciate that the committee is putting around more guardrails on the process than the bill includes that was generated from the House, which is unlikely to produce larger districts, right? So, I can appreciate that you're putting some time boundaries around this to ensuring that it can happen. I think we would welcome the opportunity to come back and think more concretely with you, around how that would work. I mean, I think a lot of our questions come back to the delay and the transition to the funding and the impact on the overall cost and opportunity of the system.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, I think it's really important that we keep very, very clear about this. You have directed the Joint Fiscal Office in consultation with the contractor to finalize the foundation formula. They can't do that if they don't understand what the districts are going to look like, because the foundation formula cost factor model relies on a description of the existing system. So they need to know, they can't model what your foundation formula should look like if they don't know the size of the districts. Your cost factor analysis model is a backwards looking description of 52 districts with 119 districts, or SUs and SDs with 119 districts under ID. So they're not going to be able to complete the work if you don't make policy choices that they can build from. So these things are all hooked together. That's why we're always talking about this three legged stool, right? We just have to sort of It bear that in will mean that they won't be able to complete. I don't know how they would think they would work based on their model. Yeah. Absent an understanding of what the district's Yeah. But

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: I think, you know, before we're able to conclude, I would love the opportunity to continue this conversation next week and be able to get into the details. As I mentioned at the top of the meeting, we really want to be a thought partner. We want to be at the table supporting you and responding to the feedback that you have and making this better so it's workable. I do want to just reiterate that our main critique of H95 is that the CESAs aren't workable. That's our main critique that I want to communicate for the reasons that we've already enumerated. And then we've identified some of these other what we are what we know to be some barriers that we want to work with you to overcome.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Please feel free to send us questions via email about things that you'd want to talk more about. Really love to come spend more time and have this, like, working time with you. And every time we come in, we can iterate and address your concerns and needs as you go. So, we really do, as I said, our job is to support implementation of the bill that you passed, and we wanna help you get across the finish line on this work. I understand. We understand the move in the building. We want help. We appreciate all

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: that you're doing. And we appreciate all that you're doing in this committee, right? This is really big complex work as the Deputy Secretary indicated. We have an eye towards implementation. And so, we're just really very eager and willing to be with you as a partner over the next several days to think through these details to get to something that really advances the goals of Act 73, which I think we all really believe in, and want to achieve.

[Jeff Fannon, Vermont-NEA]: Thank you very much.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We take nothing else with you. You passed chronic absenteeism. That's huge.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: Thank you for having us.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Appreciate

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: it. You're welcome. Ben, why don't you don't you ask Beth to

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I'm swap chairs. Okay. I'm sorry. That's But I will not take your laptop back.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Mine's with the boat.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: When when Jessica James appears, she needs a seat.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: She does.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education (Vermont AOE)]: I will

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: get a seat.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. A few minutes. So, yes. For the record.

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: For the record, Ben Kinsley, campaign for Vermont Prosperity. Have a fairly compressed time frame today. So, I'll jump right in and pause for questions at the end. I wanted to revisit a couple of data points that we had shared with the committee earlier in session as I think they're kind of relevant to our approach to interpreting H nine fifty five as they came over to you from the house. The first is that regression analysis of Vermont's education data indicates that only 4% of the variation in per pupil spending can be explained by the size of those districts. So the scatter plot behind me is showing that distribution of school districts based on their size and their cost per student. What we do find is when, instead of looking at districts, we look at supervisory unions, there is a pattern that emerges, and the 16% on the variation in spending can be explained by a supervisor even size as opposed to roughly 4% based on just your size. That makes Jamie. The third data point I want to review is, you know, where Vermont's cost per student has been historically and some of the collection points that we've seen versus data. I will note this is NCES data and everything to what would be the left of that vertical bar there. It's doing this only once per decade, and everything to the right is the annual stuff, just the way we get the data from NCES. And we can see from the green line here, which is Vermont, that there's accelerations in two places on a cost per student basis. There's one in the 1999 to 2000 school year, which would be the one following Act 60, and there's a second acceleration in twenty sixteen-twenty seventeen school year, which would be the year that the Act 40 six merger has got underway. The intervening decade between 2011, 2010, and 2016, 2017 actually saw fairly stable cost per student growth, in line with what our peers saw. Part of the reason that we might be seeing that acceleration during the Act 46 merger is, of course, merger incentives, but also something that the Grace Miller report found, which I know she spoke with you all earlier in the session as well, which is that there's basically no cost savings when you're looking at a year prior merger and your post merger for all the districts that make governance changes during that 46 process. What one explanation for that is when you look at specific categories of spending is that there were contract changes and salary level ups, as well as increases to support services that totaled about $1,500 per student, and a lot of that increase in cost, it's wiped out the administrative cost savings. So that brings me back to age nine fifty five, as we received it from the Senate. There are some good things that we like to have or sorry, we've received it into the Senate, so my apologies. First is it creates regional shared service providers aimed at achieving scale. This is something, it's a structure that give or take 40 other states have used to find efficiencies, so we'd like to add direction. The approach also reflects a view that meaningful efficiencies may be more achievable at the supervisory and in our service area level rather than through district consolidation of the loan, but it's an opinion that we share. The bill also leverages, leaves mergers these mergers as somewhat optional. And as I kind of noted earlier, district size is not a consistent predictor of efficiency on a cost per student basis. So mergers themselves not guarantee cost savings. Another interesting note from the from the Miller report was that the forced mergers at the end of the act 46 process were particularly less effective than voluntary mergers towards the beginning of that process. So for those two reasons, we don't we are not big fans of of the forced merger component that may or may not be included in the bill as a density floor. I think the other positive thing is that it does require formal analysis before any district unification proposal goes to voters. That study first approach gives districts and communities a chance to view educational, financial, and operational implications rather than moving straight into structural changes. It also adds safeguards for students with disabilities and the maintenance of effort requirements, which are important things to consider in regards to the foundation formula and the implementation of that. It also encourages regional thinking, encourages but does not require, regional thinking about middle school, high school, career, and technical education access. There is a way to implement that in a way that students gain access to our programs than their current districts can support on their own. The final thing I would like to mention is the new regional assessment districts. We believe that these will lend to more consistency and help with some of the tax stability issues and the CLA challenges that we have today. Again, it's helping to stabilize tax rates for the participants. The thing we don't like about H-nine 55, again, as

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: it came over to the House,

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: If local school boards believe that their assigned groupings are impractical or undesirable, that view will strain local volume due to heightened concerns about local control, especially communities that remained prairie after Act six in that process. We believe we really needed local communities to be bought into this change effort in order for it to be effective, and again, the ones that we saw having the, being most effective during F-forty six were the ones that bought in early, invested in that process. We are concerned that the CCEP model It's

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: still under the bill, has it not, for the districts to go into a different state group if they want to?

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: There is, but there's an assigned grouping out of the gate based off of the masks, and so if I get into that. One of the major one of our most major concerns about the House version of the bill is that CSOs may be recapped right out of the gate in terms of their ability to generate meaningful cost savings from shared services. Shared services, to really implement them fully, are gonna take significant work, coordination between districts, supervisory unions, and CESAs. This bill throws all three right out of the gate into larger discussions that will extract from that mission of trying to achieve savings through shared services. So there's that tension to fill. We also say that if shared services are left as optional, the savings are gonna be optional as well. Know, BOCES or CSOs are optional today, and adoption's been sloppy. We also believe that the compressed timeline for what is gonna be a complicated governance review process is relatively short. Districts are gonna be facing major differences in staffing contracts, transportation patterns, debt facilities, school configurations, and all of those factors may make it difficult to produce durable plans and meaningful public engagement on a schedule that has been provided. I would say that the bill also does not establish a mechanism to ensure that long term savings will follow this effort in order to create and also create a system to measure the outcomes and how we're tracking the state against those goals that the policymakers have set. I have heard some positive things from the agency today in terms of having a strong set of criteria and goals and tracking against that. Think that is absolutely necessary, and it was something that was, quite honestly, missed during Act 46. It was a component that was not present in Act 46. It was one of the largest flaws in that legislation. Finally, I would say that delays in implementation of the foundation formula, this bill delays it until 2030. It's probably another one of the most significant flaws of the bill from our perspective. Data shows that this is the most significant policy change that can be implemented in order to stabilize tax rates and reduce spending. People are pushing this deadline out. It extends uncertainty for districts, for taxpayers, and also for families who are trying to plan around future funding of government schools. So what do we propose as changes to age five as they move over to you? But I understand that the latest draft of the bill does address some of these things, so this may or may not be something that something something that you're already considering. First is to get rid of the the district map that came across. This is likely to create misalignments between operating structures and does not respect local cultural differences and may preclude natural partnerships forming. It kind of was obvious low hanging fruit that we saw at the beginning of the Act 46 process that produced good outcomes. We really want those merger discussions to have local buy in, and the math complicates that. We also believe that we should look at better leveraging existing structures before we go creating new ones. Your secretary called us as duplication or, you know, adding adding an additional layer to our education delivery system. We agree with that view. There's a risk that CSOs do that. It could be the existing SUs untouched. SUs are an underleveraged structure, and they're not currently configured in a way to achieve scale, but they could be. And the the senate version the senate language that was introduced earlier in the session, we believe is a better starting point towards that from the house bill, and we can get into into some of the more reasons why we think that. But at a fundamental level, we believe that's a better starting point for that specific reason. Of course, when it comes to SUs or CESAs, we believe a core set of services should be required, and then a process should be set up in order to review additional services that should be added to that list over time. I'd also say that, you know, another significant component that we recommend is reviewing the order of operation timelines that are laid out in the bill. We don't believe they are configuring a way to get us to significant savings quickly. We believe that the logical order of operations would be to focus on achieving cost savings through shared services first via the new scale provided by either an SU consolidation effort or a CISA model, and allow that process to play out for a year or two in order to encourage local decision makers to work with their regional partners. Then implement the foundation formula, which should be less disruptive to small districts if they have sufficiently leveraged those shared services. Heard a lot about having to do consolidation first in order to implement the foundation formula. We would actually say, model foundation formula off of 119 school districts, use the shared service model as a way for them to work within the foundation formula framework, and there's a half dozen other states that have districts as small as ours that have successfully done that. That'd good to them for models.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Can you pause on that for a second, because I wanna see if the committee has the same understanding that I do, which is whatever might have gone awry otherwise, the modeling that APA Consulting and AOE used started with their desired future state and worked backwards. And the more of the number we went with in the Foundation Garmin Lab was from here is our current state of affairs, and this is the most efficient dollar amount to educate each student. Mean, that's just a huge difference. I I just think we should be stopped. We should be done referencing the 2024 foundation formula that we've forgiven by AOE. I I think that was kind of rejected.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: What I'm not sure. Do mean the foundation amount? What do think the

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, they're originally, like, I don't know, 14,000 something something, and it it it just, like, comes back up in here, and I just think we're done talking about that number. It's we we weren't ever going to use a number where the methodology was to start with a certain number of large districts and work backwards. Like, I forget which one is called which kind of methodology, but

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, yeah, so you're saying the 15 over rate came from the third audit?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: To my knowledge, used a completely different analysis that started with what we have now. And so as we talked to Aileen and others, we're no longer there was I don't know if there's shared agreement, but it it no longer felt useful to me for us to talk about here's this future number of districts, and here's, like, each school counselor it would take in that system to meet the need, and they also didn't put in enough staff of like what we currently require by law, etcetera, etcetera. So I just feel like we're just done with any numbers that came out of that analysis, and it came back up in this memo.

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: I think it's fair to say that it was based on a different set of assumptions than what might be going forward. My point is that, and our point is that, there are plenty of other states that have small school districts, smaller than the ones that we're talking about, any map that has been talked about, that has successfully implemented foundation with a CISA model or some sort of shared service provider, whether that's, you wanna call those, CSOs or supervisor or what have you, have done that successfully. So

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: think just a comment I agree with you. I think that, you know, I'm not quite sure how the mechanism is gonna happen to make that transformation happen. But why they do it right now?

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: If there's truly districts that can't survive with a shared service provider and underneath the foundation formula model, that puts pressure on them to merge. That would be the third phase, is go into a merger phase with, after CISAs or some sort of shared service providers have placed, foundation formula, then mergers, merger incentives, and it's gonna be pretty apparent which districts are viable and what they're not.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: If we wait till we get this bill out of the gate, it'd be two years, we'll get the way it's going.

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: Well, that's the other thing. That strategy, from our perspective, gets us to savings a lot faster, because we know that shared services generate savings based on the experience of other states. We know that the foundation formula is gonna save us money. We get those two reforms in earlier, and then additional mergers can follow where they make sense. That's essentially, and I would say I know that there is political pressure to make that merger process mandatory. I've heard that from the agency today, as well as a number of other places. I was encouraged to hear the agency say that there needs to be a robust framework of requirements around any sort of forced merger. We agree with that. There really needs to be a full cost benefit analysis on any merger that gets, that makes all the way that way, and that was one of the biggest failings of Act 46, is that it did not have that comprehensive cost benefit analysis on individual mergers that were required by state board of education. The last thing I would say that was missing from the House version of

[Mark Kania, Vermont School Boards Association]: this

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: bill is that our governance challenges include CTE, We've been siloed from our K-twelve system for a very long time, and while we're making significant changes to our education delivery system today through this bill, we should not let the opportunity to integrate CTE fall by the wayside. So whatever governance system goes forward should contemplate how to integrate CT governance and CTU when they get to it. And I think I will pause there. I have some other slides here,

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: but I think

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: that's good enough for today.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Great, questions.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Good to agree with the campaign for her. You, bro. I think you've, I followed you on the radio.

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: Oh, yes. I think you were on the radio

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: after me.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: She's screaming.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your time. So center up until you work from the room, actually, just so you know, we're gonna make it Sunday at eight.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I need to probably 09:30.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And Yeah. To work on the. Okay. Great. So, Stephanie, you just come back up. We got you. Are

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: we getting, like, a calendar invite with a Zoom link, Daphne? Or Yes. I'll just put up

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: with those. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. So my notes you have today, then I'll also have the last best offer issue. I don't see. So Well, that is That it's just sent over another draft

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That we have online. It's really not as different from what we have in front of us with fifty one point one.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Debbie, can you let me in? Yes, I am. Not seeing you

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: yet. Perfect. Okay. Try.

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: And double check to make sure the right thing

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: is here. There we are.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The new version is not fine. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's St. James Office of Legislative Counsel. So we are going to look at, and I'll share my screen in a second. This is draft 3.1 of the strike all amendment to H-nine 30. You have been looking at it instances, and today is the first day we're looking at the strike all amendment. That's you do not have. This is new from the last time I was sitting here based on the direction to add something.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: It's on the website.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is on the website. Yes. Draft 3.1. H931. So the only differences between the draft we looked at the last time I was in this chair an hour and a half ago and this draft are in We're gonna go all the way to page, technically, very bottom of page 21. On to page 22, section six, this is the Hazing, Harassment, Bullying Advisory Council. And I believe the language highlighted yellow represents the changes that Charlie Glisserman walked you through.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So coming in below, you know? Yeah, it's funny.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm on your website right

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: now. I'm

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, the future, ma'am. I'm on on page page twenty twenty three. Three.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Oh,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: there we go. Okay. Use the title or what happened. Yep, go ahead.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So the membership, my understanding, I've made the changes based on the draft that Charlie presented to you earlier, but because this is all new language for the bill, it's all underlined. And we've gone kind of back and forth with different versions of the language. Just wanted to note that this is all in combination, it's new.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Yep.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, the membership of the advisory council is now made up of the executive director, so the executive director of the principal's association of the school board, superintendents, NEA, and Visa are all in current law, which is struck through here. And the Human Rights Commission. And then, so the new folks start after the human rights, after Visa. So two members who serve as designated employees under the Hays and Graduate Billing Prevention Policy appointed by the Secretary of Education, a member appointed by the Vermont Educational Equity Collective, a social worker appointed by the National Association of Social Workers Vermont Chapter, a member appointed by the Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights, a student member appointed by the Vermont Student Anti Racism Network, a student member appointed by Outright Vermont, a member appointed by the Office of Racial Equity, a member appointed by the Commission on Women, a member appointed by the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, and a parent or caregiver member appointed by the Vermont Family Network.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Roberts, if you weren't here, this was a key bond by Charlie and the agency, so we just, I just plugged it in.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Then the duties of the advisory council, they did change, so the draft you were looking at previously had the advisory council taking more of a leadership role in these activities, and now we have changed that language to say that they review and advise on all of these things. So, they review and advise on coordination of school and statewide activities. They review the model or HHB policy every three years, not two. They review and advise on resources for school professionals, and that was the extent of the changes there. You do have an appropriation for the per diems associated here. We already went over the energy performance contracting. And then on page 27, section nine, I've added the Commission on Public School Employee Health Benefit's dispute resolution language. I did run this by Sophie. And this is the language that Sophie and I agreed on, is that it is the BLV arbitrator shall select between the last best offer of each party on an issue by issue basis without amendment.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, Senator, this was Senator Hashim's proposal to as an amendment to of Senator Mick's proposal. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And it runs to Heath. Go ahead. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Yeah. As a compromise between adding something and adding nothing. I recommended getting rid of the language with or without amendment. Which was in the

[Mark Kania, Vermont School Boards Association]: initial proposed by 10 of

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: the weeks. If you have the last best with the original language, it kind of defeats the entire purpose of having a laugh at that offer. Yeah. But rather this as more geared towards the issue by issue basis.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, it's saying, whatever the issues are in dispute, both should submit a last best offer on just those issues, and then one will be chosen without amendment between the dispute and all.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Leeks. Just pragmatic

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: point of view, I just wanna make sure I understand Senator Hashim's vision of with or without amendment. So say say for example, party a says should be a 100, party b says it should be 200. Without an amendment, that the mediator could say, well, it's going be one fifty.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Correct? Well, I mean, that's what you're trying to get to before you get to this. Right, the whole process gets to that. Process and if it's your last best offer, it means you're not going to accept 150 because your last best offer is maybe 100.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: That's the role of mediators to find find that common ground. See if there is a common ground that that the two parties can agree on. Without amendment does does not allow you does not allow the mediator to make that compromise. That that that's my hesitation. Part of the point is maybe they're close, but they're not congruent. How do we resolve it such that we can find the the gap and the mediator solves the problem? That that's my I'm just asking. Is it right that 40 a is a 140 b is 200? No one could say it's one fifty. It's gotta be one or the other. Issue by issue. I'm just trying to illustrate it from my own understanding. Oh, that's correct. Right?

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: I'm just looking at it. Is that I'm I'm just hearing you out.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Well, it's a question. So without amendment, it does not allow you to settle on remediate or settle on the 150 as an answer.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Right, it's whatever the last test is.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yep. So, the difference between this and status quo is that the last best offer applies to sort of section perception is to the whole thing. So That's what you're like.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, just from having a lot of experience on the labor committee, I worry about trying to find a big ground at this late time because this changes the nature of the negotiation up until the point where you figure out where you disagree that. Like, on the one hand, I was thinking, oh, this could just be the status quo because there's a lot you already agree on and you're just arguing about these few things and we're taking all that other stuff out. But especially with healthcare packages, they work together. You know, it's like one benefit package. And I don't know if this becomes like an option, if they both agree that they would do this instead. I don't know what that gets us, but it otherwise, you're changing you're you're asking them to find some agreements in advance that might be hard to find if they don't know what's gonna happen with other provisions.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, way the process works, I think, is that parties meet, they talk, and then they when they they reach and pass, then a mediator comes in, tries to get them together and gets them as close as he or she possibly can have.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: In fact, I think.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And if they the backbinder, you're right actually. And then if they can, that doesn't get them to resolution then finally, there a mediator also brought in after the backbinder? Or? Mediator and then, only then do you go to Final fund. Impense. And our procedure. So there's a lot of opportunity to work down toward it. But

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I think what we heard yesterday is the fact finder is trying to hint to you, this is what we think the best decision is about. Here's where you are far apart. Here's where you're close together. But the essence of a negotiation is sort of a psychological one of trying to maybe give in one place but take in another, and you need the full package to do that. I don't know how you leave certain parts out where there's agreement without impacting how you feel about the areas of disagreement.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, we don't know. And my question is that I don't know. And we're sitting here. We're gonna make policy on something we know about. I know. This was my profession. Oh, that's

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: what I did. Great. Well, leave it there. What

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: was your profession? Like a mediator?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So as a a project director, international projects.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: We get

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: to the point of trying to find resolution.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: With a union? Like in a labor relations board or?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Well primarily with with whomever the customer. Okay. Whether it's government, commercial entity,

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: solar,

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

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But not collective bargaining.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: They're unions involved.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Okay.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: The essence is the same. So what I would submit now fully understanding the impact of with or without amendment, I would still have k with or without amendment, and I'll leave it at that. That's what my vote is for. The rest of the language is fine. So not

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: trying to completely derail this, but, you know, with everything else that we have in front of us, I'm also still kind of confused as to why we're the committee working on labor negotiations and health insurance. I get that it, you know, involves teachers but this isn't an education policy that we're working on. I don't know if it's germane to the education legislation is education bill but on that out there, I don't know, perhaps there's other committees that work on this area, right, where we probably go ahead a bit more efficiency.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Know it didn't get taken up elsewhere, but process wise, there are economic development, government operations, health and welfare, and finance all have some piece of jurisdiction over this question. Even in the labor committee, we fight over some of these issues and who has jurisdiction, but it would be very late to do something that touches so many jurisdictions and then not expect them to sort of want significant time to visit. I'm not saying we don't, I'm all good with the end game, like things happen quickly, etcetera, but if we haven't talked to those four other committees, that is a hard thing to do on a Friday afternoon.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: I mean, do we keep something in there and then send it along for them to review. Ultimately, your call but it's just a just a thought.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Senator Weeks. Well, we're not done session. We're we're towards the end of the session. I I would like to to senator to both senators perspectives. Vote on the issue. If it passes, send it on to the next committee of jurisdiction. See where it goes, see what they think, and pull the clock in. I think we have enough time to do that. The the concept is not you know, it's not as complex as some of the other concepts which we deal with. Leave it at that. But I I would like to at least in this committee figure out if there's any appetite for Doctor. We say it's too hard and it's

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: not enough time. Colin, do want to say something?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yeah. Thank you, senator Bongartz. For the record, Tom Ram Hinsdale, I just wanted to make it clear coming out of yesterday's testimony that you heard that Vermont NEA doesn't support the language as drafted, the language as presented. I think you heard clearly articulated yesterday the value of the statute as as it exists right now to reach finality with total package, LBO, driving parties together. Quite frankly, we're we feel like this is sort

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: of a solution in search of

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: a problem. We're not really sure what material change it will have on the cost of the healthcare crisis that we've talked about many times, and I know you all know very well. So I just wanted that clearly, understood, kind of yesterday.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, Senator Hashim. So, I

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: guess one question. I mean, I'm thinking about a situation. Tell me if I'm oversimplifying it but situation where the parties agree on four out of five of the issues but there's just one issue where they're not budging on. And then the deal followed by the wayside to that one issue. But having it be on an issue by issue basis seems to allow for some flexibility if parties are pretty darn close to getting to a resolution but not quite there. Or am I misunderstood? This isn't I'm not Well, As

[Jeff Fannon, Vermont-NEA]: for the record, Jeff and Roman, you certainly could do it that way, but go most parties most times your TA tentatively agree on certain things. So four out of five, I've seen Jamie's head. I mean, that that's how it works. The parties agree to agree to agree to it. They have one outstanding issue. That's the one that goes to the arbitrator. And then the problem with that is if the arbitrator tries to fashion a remedy or or to, you know, do an issue by issue on that or something like that, because that issue is actually three issues permitted, they could untie the items before they had knocked. And that that can cause significant unintended consequences on the other four that they may have agreed to already. Both sides may not like what what comes of it, and there's no no ability to sort of put the toothpicks back in the tube.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So what you're saying is this kind of already happens if we try to use the same language. Like, you you if you have tentative agreement on some things, those are written into the last best offer that you put in, but you know you have tentative agreement, and you're really just making sure the full package is there. And then if they the both the mediator, fact vendor, the PLRB, they know essentially what you

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: typically do under your bar.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, this does happen a lot with conference committees. We had to replay a tape on the CHIP conference committee because it was like, no. We already agreed to that. But if you don't write it in the full package, you actually can feel burned by not understanding or or not having a real black and white print of the negotiation

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: that The custom final offer is a written document.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But it has all the pieces. Don't eat out any pieces because they all need to work together.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: Mark, do you want

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to speak on this?

[Mark Kania, Vermont School Boards Association]: I'll wait for the conversation to speak, but, yeah, I would like to.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Sorry. So why don't we let you speak?

[Mark Kania, Vermont School Boards Association]: So for the record, Mark Kania, Vermont School Board Association. I think we're conflating a bunch of different pieces. So two parties get together. They reach some agreement on certain things. Those things are not put to the sides they've been agreed to. Go to mediation. You might reach more agreements. Those pieces are put to the side because they've been agreed to. Maybe after fact finding, we get a few more. At the end of the day, we have four things that we have not agreed on. As it stands right now, those four things, you go to arbitration, you have the arbitration hearing, you discuss those four things. The arbitrator then picks all four on one side or all four on the other. That is how it is right now. If this language were to go in, going with deep without amendment, four things are discussed. The arbitrator could say, we like side a for issue a. We like side b for issue number two. We just and so they'll look at the issues as written by last best parties issue by issue, take one or the other without changing any language. If it were to still say with amendment, that's when the arbitrator can say, you say a 100, you say 200, let's go

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: to 50. I'm okay with

[Mark Kania, Vermont School Boards Association]: that without amendment, but I do like the idea of those four issues. Everything else has been decided for your mislead. It's not being discussed at this arbitration part of the package, but you're not talking about the arbitration. Just the four issues that have been debated during the arbitration hearing.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: And can

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: it affect what has already been agreed on at all?

[Mark Kania, Vermont School Boards Association]: Well, it's gonna be the whole package. Essentially, So, I don't know what's

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: the What I'm saying is once you agreed on this and it's put away and you come down to this next where you barged your back and forth and the arbitrator said one fifty, and one side says, nope. Just not gonna do it. Could it affect everything that you've already done?

[Mark Kania, Vermont School Boards Association]: I'm not gonna say no to it. Okay. No, no, that

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: is fine. I'm not. Okay.

[Mark Kania, Vermont School Boards Association]: But I think those, you just both sides have figured out how they wanted it. I think the NDA's argument is that the four pieces that you're putting forward might be interrelated, and you put together a package that you're happy with, and you would like that whole package. This would be line by line.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But But also, to to Steve's question, you wouldn't you wouldn't expect the the arbitrator wouldn't expect to see any changes to the things you tentatively agreed on in your last best offer?

[Mark Kania, Vermont School Boards Association]: The way I was reading your question is that any change like, if I take option a and then option b, would that in that impact would have an effect on previously The rest of the what

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: it you've already you said put it away, you've agreed on it, you've agreed it, you've agreed on it, you get down to these last four things, three of get agreed on that last fourth one, either of you the groups can and arbitrary goes, okay. One fifty. And

[Mark Kania, Vermont School Boards Association]: Well, the way it's written right now, the arbitrary couldn't do that.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: I understand. Okay. But I'm saying because right now and if we do it without amendments, you would either have

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to pick the 100

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: or the 200, but only add of that four items when it comes down to the end without amendment. If we just said, then he has to choose one or the other. Amendment, he could fix it. I'm just trying to understand that.

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity]: I think, Terry. Does that make sense to you

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: as well? It does. But if you say fix it,

[Jeff Fannon, Vermont-NEA]: is it it's so axiomatic. It's not. These are complicated. And the the neutral the last decision said this stuff is complicated. Mhmm. So trying to to fashion a remedy here, the parties have gone through for a lengthy period of time partying, months, months and months. Mhmm. And and they're down to the last two, three, whatever the number of issues are, they could not agree on. Mhmm. They they need some help making a decision. But those are intertwined. Both parties come through with

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: a package. Mhmm.

[Jeff Fannon, Vermont-NEA]: So to have somebody come you know, the neutral to come in and say, I'm gonna take this complicated issue. I know you guys have barking out bargaining on it for months. You've reached agreement on 18 other issues I'm talking about. Mhmm. Whatever. And and

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: I'm gonna try to let's bring it down one issue.

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

[Jeff Fannon, Vermont-NEA]: fact finder has already done that. Mhmm. That's what we've agreed to the fact finder's reports previously. And that person, that neutral person said, look, guys, I think here's where where you can meet in the middle. I'm I'm proposing the middle for you, and that's already been done. That's what we agreed to the last time. So for example and then to have a party, we we offered to the the arbitrator at the end, the backcountry report. We agreed to it.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm.

[Jeff Fannon, Vermont-NEA]: And so that was a package, if

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: you will, that the arbitrator the backcountry's meeting thought was reasonable for both parties to reach an agreement on. So if if But in the fact finding, if it was the lesser number, say a 100 over the 200, and It might have been 100 and Backfinder canned fashion. But then why does it then why

[Jeff Fannon, Vermont-NEA]: The Backfinder's report is not mandatory. It's not binding on the sides. So So we we when we went to arbitration at the end, you go mediation, fact finding, arbitration. The fact finder said or I got the order accepted. Don't worry about it. The fact finder's recommendation was one fifty. Well, I think the middle ground between your 100 and or 200 is one fifty. And that's what ultimately we said to the final binding arbitrator. We will agree with the fact finder report. That's what we did. So then allowing the the neutral arbitrator at the end to

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: So if we went with unamended, he would just at that point, it brings it down here's me. Sorry. Picks either it any the the unions or the schools

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Here's

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: what it

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: without the analogous switch. I I I think that's right.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But Yeah. I'd also say it's

[Jeff Fannon, Vermont-NEA]: gonna drive the parties further apart. Would have sat on 100, for example, using the example here, and they would sat on 200 because we wouldn't have said, we think the fact time trick for it is is the right way to go, the new in the middle. So it's gonna drive the parties further apart on all the remaining three, four issues. I don't think that's the purpose of at all. So, go ahead. Senator Rashim.

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Just want to back up a little here. Current system, parties are negotiating, mediating, and talking about whether or not 100 work, $100 works, or $200 works in the or if they can be at 150 and then, there are, for whatever reason, insurmountable issues and then, as a last resort, they get to this point where they have to provide last best offers of the entire package of whatever they're asking for. Right? So so I I I don't see after all of this which is good conversation. I don't see why we're trying to change this. I I think I mean, I I I take back what I said. And, you know, I I don't think doing it on an issue by issue. Case makes more sense. I think it actually, it seems to be providing more ambiguity and more complexity. So, I mean, it's it's I I I would prefer just striking the language in its entirety for this. I I I don't know why we're trying to introduce this or what we're trying to fix with this.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think me and Nader and Terry, great.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So the why is our constituent school boards requested the same which we put in here based on their experiences. That's where this came from. And the conversation's about two years old. That's the lie. Now whether you agree or not, that's the next.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I will say the conversation has led to sweeping changes in healthcare costs, and we're seeing them hap- happening before our eyes. We're- we're having hospitals tell us now we're losing, you know, whatever it is, 500,000 a day or something. That is all the taxpayer money that is stuck in the system, that we want our hospitals to be okay, we want our healthcare system to be okay, we want our teachers to be well, we want our schools to be well, we want our pretense payers to be well. But the conversation about the cost of healthcare and how we pay for our largest employers in the state to cover the cost of health care has led to significant reforms and even more so with the bills passed this year. It's it's not like nothing is is happening.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I think I think that's an optimistic view. I don't think we've solved the healthcare problem.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: What's in the papers? Okay.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Donna proves otherwise. We'll leave it at it.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So will you make a motion? Did you you won't I don't think I don't think there's

[Sen. Nader Hashim]: Motion? No. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The great appreciation for the hearty conversation. It's what we do.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Sarah, thought you know, leave it in or take it out. I'd like to leave it.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I'm Wait. In.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So leave what in now? Leave the

[Sen. Steven Heffernan]: Leave the as written.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The as written Well

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: who? Written without him.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: As written written.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Which of them were written by who? Like, the weak sentence that we got? Yes. Oh, okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So let me I'm afraid we're gonna be real

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yes.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: With this. I actually am am very sympathetic to this, but we didn't have a bill in the committee. For some reason, we went to the house. We never saw it. Feel like we're just we haven't we're not taking the time. It's it's actually a a sea change. Whatever we do. And we need to I wish you'd be able to come in the home of building. Spend time on it but I'm I'm not really. I'm also pretty sure of what you have. So Mhmm. And I don't wanna do that well.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: For a future year, if people wanna raise this conversation, if it's standalone in the Senate, I don't know where the secretary would direct it. In the house, it was directed to general and housing because it's a lot about collective bargaining negotiations. You sit on economic development, you may next year as well. If it was a standalone bill here, it's probably a labor negotiation process conversation.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: That's fine. They could be out three three zero and that's not it. I appreciate the conversation. You know, our constituents Mhmm. That were adamant for years and just wanted to make sure it got some air quotes. I appreciate, apologize for the turbulence that it's an issue that never was since the years.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Don't apologize. I love the end of session.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I just want to ask. Yes. Yeah. I don't know what what I'd wanna how I'd wanna work with me. Yeah. Because I I so I think we are trying we might be within striking distance of getting this filled out. There was one issue raised third. That was okay. That's gonna take some time to walk through section by section. So let's keep it up to 10.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yes. Yeah. We're we're I'm not gonna make a motion, but we we talked about adding the opt out for parents who don't want their kids to be not to be be required to use electronic device and screens. And I understand we have some weighing.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I don't think we do. That's in a technology. But, yes. Yeah. All right.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: What I'm saying is-

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It was in a house bill, there's language, and I think there was a request to look at that house bill language in the tech bill that would maybe make funding more complicated. I don't know. We've heard a lot about the opt out, but I I could take it at face value. I I get it. You know, I I don't want it to influence other academic freedom issues like books and topics. So it is I think it may be a bigger education policy question, but we did ban cell phones. So I think the screens and electronic devices are something we've already treated as as a separate unnecessary practice at school.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So you're saying we don't have to get into opt out because we might not be Where's the technology about?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The S650? We're doing it Monday. Monday. If you wanna propose it for that, I would not oppose. I just I I I'd be open to it. Be voting. Okay. Oh, okay. Because because you won't be able to be there. But somebody would need to get, I think, back? No. Rick. Somebody would need to get Rick the house opt out language for him to put it in

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: the form of his bill. Oh, good.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Yes. Are you Gary or German? Yeah. Just one question. We talk or actually, we talked about the teacher we talked about teacher pay analysis. Couple times. We've heard a lot of a lot of suggestion of there's a risk with bigger districts or statewide school systems that this teacher pay disparate disparities would be extremely fall fall back. And I'm wondering if we've ever asked JMO or anybody else to do an analysis to see if there is you know, if in fact there is a problem that could not be solved with geographic, cost of living differences between regions or any other analysis, I just wanted to know if if if we've ever asked for formal analysis of the teacher pay problem with larger footprint districts.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Don't know if it's anywhere around that 46 or not.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Would just here. I mean, I would posit that the analysis you'd be likely to get back would be all of the challenges with answering your questions without other factors being held constant. So you could do it by some idea of the districts that we have if you wanna

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Just what? Just stay what? I already asked ALE to do that Yeah. When when we're going through x 73.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And they said they would.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So Well, whatever they said today, I just wanna make sure we understand. It's almost like it's it's almost at odds with the other argument we hear. So what they keep saying is that you need the larger districts to pay teachers well. And I don't like, Massachusetts has districts of 1,500 to 3,000 besides Boston, and they have the highest teacher pay in the country. So

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: They also have 700.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: We have so much to be able to hear.

[Speaker 10]: I'd be happy to chime in

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: if you want.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, really? Okay. So

[Toren Ballard, Director of Policy and Communications]: investing in teachers seem For the record, Toren Ballard, Director of Policy and Communications. First off, I'll just say that investing in teachers is one of the most important important investments we can make in education. First off, teachers have the biggest impact of any other in school factor that we see.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And that was a conversation with PICUS and Ag 46, those kinds of things that

[Toren Ballard, Director of Policy and Communications]: Yeah.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The single most factor in great schools over decent schools was teachers, and paying them well creates more stability and great teacher excellence.

[Toren Ballard, Director of Policy and Communications]: And so we've often heard in act 46 analysis and talking theoretically about what might happen under act 73 that, okay, you're gonna save some administrative expenses, but that money might wind up getting spent on leveling up teacher salaries. We don't see that at the agency as a bad thing. That's a like, if we are taking away

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right.

[Toren Ballard, Director of Policy and Communications]: Administrative expenses to invest more in teachers, that's that's a good thing. That allows us to attract teachers to parts of the state that have not been able to historically recruit and retain teachers. And so we see that as a feature, not a bug. Wanna make that very clear.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I see it that way. Do you have a plan that you have a mechanism to start working on that?

[Toren Ballard, Director of Policy and Communications]: So I can check internally on the research that went into I think you said you requested something last year during the development of act 73 before my time, but I'm happy to check-in and see what we were able to produce during that time and happy to follow-up on that.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But I so I I I mean, I have been talking about this a lot in my district because CVSD is a good recruiter. Right? Chittenden County is able to pay a higher amount. So they took some of the best, most passionate teachers from Berry, and they probably live somewhere in between, and they're some of my favorite people.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: But that's a disparity that we're talking about. That's teacher pay is regionally. So

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's right. So whatever you can do to bring up teacher pay equitably. A lot of the conversation coming out of the house is how do we pay Chittenden County teachers more because they have to live in Chittenden County. Most still don't live in Chittenden County, and you're going to exacerbate the problem of that, of recruiting teachers in that a small will travel three counties for more K.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Let's find out what AOE is done, and then bring out

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: our Okay. I'll

[Speaker 10]: I'll I'll double check to see what we did last year.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thanks a See everybody Monday morning at eight time. Have fun soon.