Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Good

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: afternoon. This is Education Committee on the afternoon of Tuesday, May 5. We are continuing our work on page nine fifty five and activating to sort of the next steps in transforming Vermont's education system. We've had we had the House bill that came over, we had the first we had another draft from committee generated draft, draft that's much looked at. And the committee wanted to take some time and hear from some superintendents in particular, and school board members about the direction it had to do with seesaws and other aspects of the bill. And so we're starting today with two people from World Schools Community Alliance, then some other superintendents. So from the World Schools Community Alliance, have Doctor. G. Albert, Doctor. Stark, followed by Michael Lewis and Nader Hashim.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Member)]: That's Paul Cherub. Yeah.

[Dr. Jeannie Albert (Chair, Lincoln School District Board; Steering Committee, Rural School Community Alliance)]: Afternoon. Good to see everyone. Thank you. For the record, I'm Jeannie Albert. I'm chair of the Lincoln School District Board and also a member of the steering committee of the Rural School Community Alliance. And I thank you for this opportunity to testify today about House Bill nine fifty five. The Rural School Community Alliance appreciates the ongoing work of the, Senate Education Committee, including on this bill, to chart a path forward that will increase opportunities for students while also respecting and supporting Vermont's rural schools and communities. Specifically, we appreciate your support for cooperative education service areas to achieve cost savings and improve quality while minimizing disruption to students through shared contracted services. For supervisory unions, particularly in rural areas, for leadership and governance provided by SUs and SDs at the local level, for district merger a district merger exploration process that embraces democratic community engagement and voluntary local decisions on whether to form new unions, and acknowledgment of differences in district operation resulting from rurality, and an approach to merger study that takes such differences into account. And I will take a few minutes to speak a little bit more, just additional considerations around these topics as you finalize and discuss the bill, but specifically focusing on CESAs, school district mergers, and class size minimums. So with respect to CISAs, I know you you're aware that their role is to provide operational efficiency and improve improved quality through shared contracted services on a greater scale than individual supervisory unions or districts can provide. We support a menu of services offered by each CISA that includes special education. We support all CISA members contracting for special education services to meet student needs and supplement what is available locally. We support all CISA members being required to adopt or at least explore adopting at least two other provided services within a specified time period. And we support having somewhere between nine to 12 CESAs statewide, which would ensure that CESAs are large enough to support substantial savings but remain nimble enough to be responsive to members. Additional recommendations we can offer. Rather than mandate CISA members contract for a large number of services right away to allow them to start with a small number and gradually add new services as CISAs become more established. And for useful information and insight regarding effective growth of CISA services and member adoption, the report that's called a shared municipal efficiency study. I I I inserted the IRL link to it. It's really helpful. I I found it really helpful in understanding a very specific situation for BOCES around the Ithaca region in New York, how they worked up to offering central business office services, but started with a few members and worked up to more and added more services. It's very carefully and usefully described. I found it helpful. With respect to district mergers that focus on using study the study committee process in current law, we support using skilled and experienced facilitators to guide and support local decision making. We support retaining the power of school boards to vote to form a study committee. We also support staggering the implementation of CESAs and the formation of study committees. And I'll say a little bit more about that in just a minute. And we also, as I mentioned earlier, support an exploration and study process that respects and takes into account districts that operate in different ways. With respect to facilitators, having skilled and qualified facilitators skilled and qualified at supporting group decision making is really critical. Knowledge of the Vermont education landscape is certainly important, but potentially less important than their facilitation skills. We note Sue McCormick, who was the facilitator for the task force, the district task force, was was was really very good. And so we just wanted to, right away, ask that you prioritize hiring facilitators who do have that formal training and facilitation skill. And then as per current law, we are asking, recommending, retaining the power of school boards to vote to form a study committee. The way we're seeing it is, and this is connected to staggering the formation of CESAs and study committees, so I'll connect that. But a a facilitator's initial important role would be to identify promising groupings of districts who can explore informally the likely benefits and challenges of consolidation, because it can't be assumed that merger will bring cost effectiveness and additional opportunities. So after discussing those options locally, they then they can vote to establish a formal study committee and proceed to do an in-depth cost benefit analysis as part of that work. The the second item or the third item listed here is staggering the formation of CESAs and merger conversations kind of fits in with this point I just made. Because given the priority to establish CESAs quickly and realize their benefits, we feel it's not feasible to ask districts to participate in formal merger study committees at the same time, especially ones that they didn't choose themselves. Instead, following facilitated informal merger conversations in conversation in consultation with their facilitator, we think it's more reasonable for districts to decide by, say, mid to late twenty seven, 2027, to form a study committee. And we did include a kind of sample timeline that lays out how that could be staggered in a way that could be reasonable. It's not the only way, but we we wanted to map out one example anyway. Just a couple of more items relative to merging. In sparsely populated rural areas, an enrollment goal for new merge districts of at least a thousand students may well be an unreachable number since the large geographic area needed to reach this number could be impractical. There there could very well be lower enrollment mergers that are feasible and shouldn't be discouraged just based on the to a target size. So flexibility would be would be really helpful. And then this last item seems maybe a little off, but I I it's something that's been, I think, an important consideration that is mergers between currently merged districts. In other words, a district that's already been formed out of several districts, merging with maybe another one that's been formed out of several districts. And I don't think there's been any examples of that to date happened, which isn't too surprising, because many of them happened relatively recently. There have been attempts, but I don't know that there have been any that have actually happened. And it particularly needs consideration when you have maybe some towns in that formation that are much smaller than the other towns. I think you're you're familiar with that locally. So in that case, it can happen that the smaller town can really be overwhelmed in a commingled vote, let's say, when you're talking about adopting new articles of agreement. In particular, I think it really takes some care to consider a process where those formerly independent districts that are now an emerged district would have the opportunity to really affirmatively reject or or include the articles of agreement that they originally adopted by vote. So just some considerations that may be, kind of not as obvious to consider. And then finally, with respect to class size minimums, RSCA in prior testimony has noted our view that we we we believe the threshold requirements in act 73 are are not supported by evidence, leading to improved student outcomes or, and we don't think they're the most effective approach to reducing costs. We are risk recommending and supporting delaying implementation of the minimums until there's additional clarity with respect to several act 73 provisions and contingencies, including the foundation formula, district mergers, and school construction. And I there's one last thing I just wanna say. It's not in the written testimony, if I can just take another thirty seconds. And that's relative to there's a there's a provision I saw that's a change in how a small school would be defined. And rather than having 100, it'd be by grade. Now, mathematically, as a mathematics professor, I totally approve of a more mathematically sound approach. But what I wanted to mention today is not so much that difference, it's the question of there being a hard threshold with a cliff right after it. So however you define it, just sticking with the way it's defined now, 100 is the threshold. You've gotta be under 100 to receive the per pupil grant, which is itself derived from the modeling that Professor Colby and colleagues did, the amount of that grant per pupil. And the way it's laid out now, because it's a hard threshold, 99 students means in a school would be over $310,000 from that grant, and a 100 students would be zero. And I think it's really important to think about that. It's not a good dynamic. You can think of all the reasons it wouldn't be for stability, for predictability. I think there could even be some unintended consequences. Lincoln has students wanna come to Lincoln. They wanna come. You wouldn't wanna set up a school to be in a position where they're thinking one more student and we lose $300,000 That's just against what we wanna be doing. We wanna be increasing, think about increasing enrollment. And there's lots of ways you can do it. You could just do a gradual decrease and set it as fast or as slow as you want. And I have actually modeled that up. So I just wanna mention that. But thank you, and happy to answer any questions if you have any.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Thank you, Doctor. Albert. I was just flipping through your written notes to make sure we're all on the same page about something moving forward with what the Senate may or may not need to do to make this bill move. You're not contemplating a vote at the end of merger decisions. But if there was a working group that was formed to look at a larger district or SU, that it wouldn't then go back

[Dr. Jeannie Albert (Chair, Lincoln School District Board; Steering Committee, Rural School Community Alliance)]: for a vote. No, no, we are contemplating there would be a vote. I believe that is what's in statute now. In other words, following the study committee process, there is a vote at the end of the districts involved. There are some differences whether you're designated, whether you're a necessary district or an advisable. But absolutely, we would contemplate having a vote at the end. Yeah. Sorry if that was

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No, no. I guess this is good clarification for me because I felt like the vote piece got added back in, Mr. Chair, when you put in

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That was

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We had been contemplating creating supervisory unions and then telling districts to merge and they wouldn't be voting because We're they keep losing

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: pushing in something to change seats on that, which is very than industrial meters, because we had to put one of the back end that was for a SU adjustment to be the boundary adjustment for the seesaws because the seesaws are set by statute, make they them not to be invented by statute. And so the process, and we will see a much simpler version of that in the next round.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay, my understanding was one of the challenges that everyone was trying to wrap their arms around, including the administration, is that when these mergers tend to go to votes, they tend to fail. And so I thought the difference here was going to be that there was more of a requirement. I'm confused.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Sure, can

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I add

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Member)]: on almost to Senator Hinsdale's Yeah, so say the commission does the study, they say, Great thing that we should merge? Here's all the good reasons why we should merge. They put a good vote. Vote comes back. No. We're gonna vote in there. You have you have all the statistics, the data that says it's the right thing to do. But the voters are like, and we see this a lot, not not my town, not now. I wanna keep my what what should we do then?

[Dr. Jeannie Albert (Chair, Lincoln School District Board; Steering Committee, Rural School Community Alliance)]: And I guess I guess the It's difficult to say because each situation is going to be different. Exactly. But I mean, I will say that I think part of the reason that we are proposing, aside from the importance of staggering these big changes so that they can all be success more successful, part of that initial window where you actually are in it, you are thinking about being in a study committee that you already believe it's it's promising to be in. That's the key. Because I get it. There are times when districts say they think it's promising, they do the work, and then the votes don't pass. But there are plenty that did pass in our I mean, in our region, for example. The the Many districts did vote to merge. So I think that's the key is starting with a process where the members in there already believe that it's a good thing to do. They just want to understand better why it's a good thing to do. So that when the vote comes, it's more of a formality than a, you know, gotta start convincing people all over again.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Member)]: One more question. Try it. You go. Just a follow-up. So if we put a hammer, as they say at the end, the town's decided, No, we don't wanna, but the study says it should happen. And the state, you believe it'd be okay for the state at that point say, We've done the study, done the research, this is what is going to actually help save us tax dollars for, I should never say save, make us more efficient, which in efficiency is what we're gonna hope to save our tax dollars. Should the state be able to, at that point, go, Well, you got the data, this is the right thing to do, you have to do it.

[Dr. Jeannie Albert (Chair, Lincoln School District Board; Steering Committee, Rural School Community Alliance)]: I mean, I think the answer to The way I'm gonna answer that is I have more faith that people can be persuaded with good information that they don't feel is coercive or trying to get them to do something that they don't want to do or something. So I You know, it's not surprising because I I've been a teacher my whole life, so I try to persuade people a lot. And so I do believe that with good information, you can persuade people. And and there have been more initial conversations going on now as well. So in other words, people already recognize in certain parts of the state that there are benefits. And I just want to build on that.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is very similar to Senator Heffernan. So Doctor. Albert, you just mentioned good information, but we live in an era of the Facebook court, or the court of Facebook, or however you want to spin it. If you can articulate again voluntary versus involuntary, and is there a time to shift from one to the other, which is essentially what Senator Heffernan asked. But I really need to kind of get a sense on whether you ever see a need to shift from voluntary or organic to involuntary.

[Dr. Jeannie Albert (Chair, Lincoln School District Board; Steering Committee, Rural School Community Alliance)]: I guess with respect to this bill, I see, we're assuming it goes forward in largely the form it's in. We're asking districts to involuntarily be part of CESAs. Right? I understand you're not talking about that. I'm just saying I'm

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: talking about government, not governments, talking about the administration.

[Dr. Jeannie Albert (Chair, Lincoln School District Board; Steering Committee, Rural School Community Alliance)]: Do appreciate the difference. But the reason I mentioned it is, it's also a question of capacity and how we ask people to do things. So the I mean, the answer to your question is I do believe that it will work in a voluntary process that doesn't have, you know, a force at the end. And in fact, I think that will be received initially in a way that might undermine optimism that I have for a process that starts in a voluntary way. Different. I appreciate that. Question,

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: kind of same question, but I'm gonna spin it a little bit differently. If it could have already happened, why hasn't it already happened? We all have good information. We all understand benefits, particularly in my area where I've got seven high schools bumping into each other. If it could have happened, it would have happened. Something preventing it? And with that in mind, can you take another shot at voluntary versus involuntary?

[Dr. Jeannie Albert (Chair, Lincoln School District Board; Steering Committee, Rural School Community Alliance)]: I'm sorry, I probably won't get quite at what you're asking directly, but I will say that I think part of the reason it hasn't, maybe things haven't moved as much as we want, is that we're stuck thinking about the structures in ways that maybe don't work the way people want. And just yet, I'm bringing this up because one of the things that I find interesting is is, say, a a structure where you've got elementary schools in a in a cluster, and you've got and you've got high schools in a cluster. And we know there's a lot of issues at the high school level. And when you have districts that are combined, elementary and high school, that tends to sometimes pit them against each other in terms of funding. And just yesterday at a meeting, a local school meeting, somebody, I don't know this person, but came up to me and said, you know, maybe we should separate the elementary and the high school, and we should have a joint high school district and more of a something with the elementary. In other words, I think what we don't have, the reason things have happened is we don't have enough new ways of thinking about how to do it. That's my answer.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So I mean, I know we have ripped it in the back of our minds, and that probably was not of a high educational value at some point, but you might have one or two kids in a grade. But I wonder if we did something like take out the elementary school size class size minimum. And just say just try to make more explicit that this won't be voluntary at some point, but it's going to be more focused on middle and high schools. Because I think otherwise the lower hanging fruit is the elementary schools, and then most communities end up with whited property in their area until they get money to do something with it.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So you're thinking more about schools than as opposed to districts in Patnault. That statement is about schools.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It was about giving the right message, creating the right incentives, but that I do worry that if it's the wrong message from the top that your elementary school is probably going to close, then we're going to see things voted down again, and we're going to be in the same place we are now. And I think maybe if we said, we are asking you to have regionally excellent middle and high schools sooner than later, or the state will start to make decisions based on construction and bonding, etcetera. I wanna be nudging people, but I don't wanna nudge them off a cliff, where they take a vote that is negative, and then they remember it for the next twenty years, right? Like that is what happens. So, I think we need to get maybe a little more surgical in the message that like, we're not, I'm not trying to close elementary schools.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Changing gears over to CESAs. I don't know if you've heard AOE's remarks on CESAs. Not in favor. We saw, we had the BOCES that was here in Vermont come up and spoke, and there are savings, as big a savings as I believe we were hoping to see, once we took out the CISA service charges. So in my worry, like anything, as the CISA grows, again, bureaucracy grows, more things are added. Next thing you know, you haven't saved anything because you're adding more services and it's costing more money. What do you say to that?

[Dr. Jeannie Albert (Chair, Lincoln School District Board; Steering Committee, Rural School Community Alliance)]: I think sometimes, and I don't know, I have seen some of the AOE responses about CESA, but I don't have it in front of me. So I won't be speaking specifically, but I do think sometimes it's perceived or presented as though it is more bureaucracy. And that's why I tried in my testimony to emphasize that it's a contracted service. So it's not like additional governance or anything like that. So that's where I actually think, And it's true that the CISA, the start of the process that we have is new. So we don't have many years to look at the savings, but the percentage savings are really quite high. So I think that there's a lot of promise. And I think that in particular, what's beneficial is you get the kinds of savings at the administrative level without all the disruption to the students by trying to push actual merge districts. That that's where I think the benefit really comes in. Thanks. Yes.

[Michael Livingston (Trustee/Board Member; retired educator; Sharon Elementary and White River Valley SU boards)]: Please finish.

[Dr. Jeannie Albert (Chair, Lincoln School District Board; Steering Committee, Rural School Community Alliance)]: Oh, no. I I was done. I just didn't wanna take more time.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I just wanted to support Senator Ram Hinsdale's comments a minute ago before we pass over it, because I don't want to ignore it. I don't think any of us in the committee are trying to target village elementary schools. In fact, that really is the heart of a community. What we are targeting in a long game is creating middle and high schools which become a center of excellence for a region, regional high schools, however you want to spin it. But I think it's important that everyone recognize that elementary schools believe we agree that they belong in the village and close to the community and back away from that. Because if people start spitting it the wrong way in the next two weeks, that we're targeting something we're not targeting, I think it's important that we reemphasize that that's not in our crosshairs at all.

[Dr. Jeannie Albert (Chair, Lincoln School District Board; Steering Committee, Rural School Community Alliance)]: Thank you for that. But I understood that to be true. Thank you. Thank you.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, Michael Livingston. Afternoon.

[Michael Livingston (Trustee/Board Member; retired educator; Sharon Elementary and White River Valley SU boards)]: Before I begin, may I say I will try to address some of the concerns and questions you just raised in my testimony. My testimony is divided into two parts. One is anecdotal, one is very specific about seesaw's fees and class sizes. I'll begin with a brief introduction. Please, thank you again for the opportunity to speak with all of you today. For the record, my name is Michael Livingston. I'm a retired educator with over forty years of experience in K-twelve education in five schools in the Upper Valley Of Vermont. I have worked in both public and independent schools as a teacher and an administrator. I'm currently serving on the Sharon Elementary and the White River Valley Supervisory Union School Boards. Besides my family, education is my passion, and I am devoted to its success. I want to acknowledge the hard work that you're undertaking to negotiate an incredibly complex challenge. I know you're well aware of the potential impacts that some of the proposed changes might have on our system. I'm well acquainted with the impact that far reaching legislative initiatives can impose on educational systems. I grew up in Northern California. After completing my undergraduate degree, I enrolled in a teacher certification program. And midway through my second classroom placement, I was offered a full time teaching position for the following year. Unfortunately, two months after I was offered that position, California passed Proposition 13, known as the Jarvis Scan Tax Initiative. At the time, California was widely considered to have perhaps the best public school system, grades k through college in the country. But after the passage of prop 13, the state school system was, and I don't overemphasize this, gutted. Teachers with anywhere from three to five years experience were summarily laid off across the state, and by all estimates, that system has never recovered. In fact, that vote was the impetus that launched my career as I sought a job out of state because there were no positions to be had in California. I mentioned this as a cautionary tale. I know you're well aware, but we have to be very careful about far reaching legislative initiatives because they don't always achieve their intended goals and in fact, may precipitate many unintended ones instead. After leaving California and prior to my time in Vermont, I taught fifth grade in El Paso, Texas, with 36 students as my class average. I taught 48 students there over the course of one year. Let's be clear, that experience bore absolutely no resemblance to what I would consider to be an optimal student experience. I was the mayor of a small town, not an effective educational leader. Although some of our class sizes in Vermont are indeed small, we need to ensure that we do not inadvertently create another Prop 13 circumstance. The 36 students I taught in El Paso were not pandemic era children, and they had no experience with current technology and social media. Those same 36 children in today's world would pose a significantly greater set of challenges. When I talk about education with colleagues, I know two reoccurring themes. The first is that scale, our small scale in Vermont, is our friend, not our enemy. A smaller scale provides greater opportunity for connection, and connection is the main ingredient necessary to build trust and respect. All growth, whether with students, faculty, and staff, or schools begins with a trusting and respectful environment. Children often need a lot of encouragement to attempt the appropriate risk taking necessary to succeed. Without trust and respect, educators have no authentic leverage and our opportunity for promoting authentic growth is severely limited. Secondly, and I've touched on this in my last testimony briefly with you, our path forward will be determined by our ability to attract and keep highly effective leaders. Leaders who know how to cultivate trust and respect and appropriately distribute leadership opportunities are the ones who will create and maintain positive learning environments for our children. Occasionally, get asked to imagine what I would do if I had a magic wand. I continually come back to one idea. I would create the Vermont Educational Leadership Academy, a collective of support staff, specialists, students, parents, faculty, administration to examine our educational landscape and identify those people and programs that best exemplify educational success. And they are out there. We would make those individuals available to communities across the state to help schools, districts, and supervisory unions create specific goals that they would hold themselves accountable to. Holding those exemplary individuals and programs to the light would not only allow us to identify and promote successful practices, it would encourage others to seek positions of leadership. Vermont must create opportunities to cultivate leadership from within. Our national demographic insisted. The people needed to run our schools aren't going to come from somewhere else. The challenge with proposals like this is that they require time. Lasting and positive change requires a serious time commitment. I have witnessed the complete transportation of my transformation, excuse me, of my supervisory union in the last six years. That transformation was guided by an exceptional school leader who helped shape and create a shared vision, which we were then all held accountable to. As a result, attendance is up, test scores are up, morale is up, and trust in our communities is up. I felt it and saw it when I walked into my local school to mentor a sixth grader just this morning. And I add this next sentence because I know this is a conversation that's taking place perhaps outside of these walls. But our superintendent, who you're well familiar with, is not a unicorn. He's an exceptionally talented individual, but this model can be replicated. What it cannot be is dictated. The distinction between telling and asking is the difference between failure and success. All of this is to say there are no quick fixes or remedies. There's attracting and maintaining qualified personnel who have the vision and the capacity to distribute leadership and involve their communities to help best prepare our children for their future, Our future. And it takes vision and commitment. First and foremost, I want to unequivocally support CISAs. Our Supervisory Union is effectively a mini CISA, and we have sustained substantial savings just in this first year of minimally 3 quarters of $1,000,000 by implementing a program to keep some of our more challenged students in house by providing them appropriate educational opportunities without sending them out of district. That's one supervisory union, 15 children at $23,000 apiece, as opposed to easily double, triple, or quadruple that by sending them into a placement where you have no idea who's been hired, You have no oversight on personnel. You have no oversight of curriculum or outcome.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Member)]: You have sorry, Chair. You have data to support all that? Yep.

[Michael Livingston (Trustee/Board Member; retired educator; Sharon Elementary and White River Valley SU boards)]: CESA should be seen as service providers, as Jeannie pointed out, who would offer support when requested by supervisory unions and districts. The question of scale, of course, is important. CESAs need to be large enough to achieve the benefit of scale, but not so large as to lose their flexibility. They

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: should

[Michael Livingston (Trustee/Board Member; retired educator; Sharon Elementary and White River Valley SU boards)]: be formed locally through conversations among schools and towns and not be an instrument for consolidation. Currently, seven CESAs are being proposed, I would suggest we consider a number approaching twice that. I would respectfully offer that version 1.1 of your bill asks for too much, too soon. We need to examine CESAs first. While those entities are being formed, allow SUs and SDs to engage in informal merger conversations. Study committees for merging should be voluntary and not mandated by hired facilitators, which is not to say we shouldn't have hired facilitators, just that they shouldn't be dictating who's involved. I have firsthand knowledge of how communities can come together to make challenging decisions. The towns of Chelsea and Tunbridge form the first branch unified school district. When I was principal at Tunbridge, each town maintained their own program, K-six at Tunbridge and K-eight in Chelsea. A joint study committee between the two towns involving educators, parents, community members, and educational experts deemed class sizes too small and recommended we send all k four students to Tunbridge and all five eight students to Chelsea. That shift has resulted in a number of positive changes for first branch, and it was achieved without being forced. In fact, I would say it's it succeeded because it wasn't forced. And mind you, this happened on the heels of Chelsea having lost its high school, an event that still ripples throughout that community. I would also respectfully submit that asking schools to spend eighteen months in the study committee when there are so many other urgent priorities is frankly a poor use of precious time. Additionally, there is little to no evidence that mergers will improve educational quality or save money. There is so much else that needs to be addressed. I don't believe we can afford to divert that time or energy. My second point here is to do with minimum class sizes. I think it's imperative that we delay minimum class size requirements until contingencies in the foundation formula have been worked out. There are way too many simultaneous requirements being asked of schools on top of all that we're trying to do here relative to student engagement, special education, student achievement, student mental health, and attendance, just to name a few. Finally, I'm going to have two more comments. One is delve into school fees just briefly. In version 1.1, section 24 and 24A, you address what do we refer to as fees, which are a fact of life in many of our schools. They exist for certain events or activities like school trips, summer school and after school programs. If memory serves me correctly from my days as an administrator, we have students paying fees for admission to playoff sporting events in Vermont and have done so for years. In my experience in both public and independent schools, fees are applied with an eye to equity. Ironically, those who would eliminate fees would ultimately be eliminating opportunity. Specifically, years ago, I took a group of almost 30 students to Costa Rica for home stays with local families, foreign language immersion and service work. Those families who could afford to pay did so. Those who could afford to only pay part, paid their part. Those students who couldn't afford to pay were offered the opportunity to go by virtue of fundraising to support all those in need. My experience, Vermonters are fair and responsible. We have no interest in creating haves and have nots. And finally, I'd like to respond to the secretary of education who implied in her testimony last week, the supervisory unions exist solely to protect choice. SUs are about so much more than choice. They're about local democratic voice, which we should be doing everything in our power to protect. They operate like many seesaws, allowing my elementary school of 155 students to absolutely thrive. That relationship allows for both efficiency and accountability, both of which serve to make us better. Thank you for your time.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: Thank you. So, I guess I wanna play devil's advocate here for a second and go to your first point, regarding CISAs. So if your SU is effectively a mini CISA, then why why would we keep it in the bill at all if, SUs can organically create these, CISAs and save, substantial sums of money?

[Michael Livingston (Trustee/Board Member; retired educator; Sharon Elementary and White River Valley SU boards)]: Thank you for asking that question. I was hoping you might, because we're talking about scalable issues. So I'm part of a Sharon Elementary School. Without our ability to join a supervisory union, we would not have the capacity to afford or attract the kind of people who help with special ed, transportation, administrative services, curriculum and what. A step above that is the supervisory union looking at a number of students who have really struggled in school with attendance and were likely to drop out. And we created a program in house for them. The next step above that would be what do we do with some of our students who are more seriously disadvantaged and disabled? And how can we create opportunities like that that would require a larger entity senator for us to form to allow us to keep those kids in state closer to home, be able to oversee their work. So I see this as all tiered, if that makes any sense to you. It does. And two more questions. At the end

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: of that first paragraph, you know, you're talking about expanding the number of CSAs. Is there I'm trying to understand a bit more as to why you might be recommending that. Is there any issue? Well, one thing that I've been contemplating is if if we create just too many SUs or have too many SDs under a CISA and just the amount of administration that would go from trying to calculate fee splitting or cost splitting between that many districts under one very large CISA. Is that part of it, or is there a different aspect?

[Michael Livingston (Trustee/Board Member; retired educator; Sharon Elementary and White River Valley SU boards)]: Well, my my hope is that the CISAs would the the the issue with seven or a number of that size is that you create an entity that's so large that the time it would take to bring everybody on board would actually get in the way of creating and providing the services we're after. So I think that there's a happy medium there. So this is not to say I don't support. I think my first sentence is I unequivocally support the idea. I just think you're going to see a faster rollout with service provided sooner if we increase that number. So that's the first thing. The second thing is, I think it's of the six or seven areas that we're all considering people can choose from as a menu from a Seesaw, I would think that in my experience in education, that something like special education is gonna rise right to the top for most SUs and SDs. So I would suggest that we not ask everybody to participate in all those areas, or even that the seesaw provides service in all those areas, but that that group pick one, two or three areas so that we're focusing and consolidating our efforts and getting better results. Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: And last question here, switching gears to the school fees that you had mentioned. I I I get what you're saying about the fees being applied for, you know, school trips, whether they're overseas or, you know, just regular trips. But, you know, what about the concern of an independent school charging a thousand dollar admission fee and then a $500 application fee, you know, in the process of getting a student enrolled there? Do you have are there any concerns with that other side of it?

[Michael Livingston (Trustee/Board Member; retired educator; Sharon Elementary and White River Valley SU boards)]: I can speak to my own experience with that. I was the head of an independent school in Sharon for a number of years, and we initially had fees like that and we removed them all. So I think that it would be my guess that that would be a direction that many schools might take. I don't think that that's as equitable. The charging fees is as equitable as we need to be. So I'm not a supporter of that. But I'm not in a position to mandate that. I think that fees inherently are not the issue. It's the application of those fees. They really are part I mentioned the issue of attending a VPA playoff game, whether it's soccer, basketball, whatever it might be. Fees are somewhat ubiquitous. I think if we just eliminate fees, we may in fact eliminate opportunities. Of those 30 kids I took to Costa Rica, there were a number of them who never traveled previously. And if we hadn't had a possibility to charge fees for those families that could afford it, we never would have gone. And in many ways, some of those families subsidized the trip for other children.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: A couple of questions.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yes. So I just want to, just for clarity, seesaws, do view them as entirely voluntary, or do you see a moment in time when they become obligatory? I just couldn't figure out from your testimony.

[Michael Livingston (Trustee/Board Member; retired educator; Sharon Elementary and White River Valley SU boards)]: I mean, the thrust of my testimony in general is that I think we get off on a better foot and get a better long term results if they start out as voluntary. I think when our supervisory union, if there was the capacity to make it better known about the savings and the benefits. We talk a lot about the savings, three quarters of a million dollars in this year for 15 kids. I should state that more importantly, the results that we're seeing with those children is incredible. They were phenomenally truant. They now have an over 90% attendance rate. They're happy to be in school. They're engaged, and they're committed. And they're working their way back out of that program and back into their schools. So I think that if we could provide the opportunity through effective leadership to demonstrate some of the practices that are being implied in our state, you would find schools and programs, districts that would be very eager to join. I don't know that we're doing that effectively, Senator.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. And again, for our own clarity, BOCES, which is the seesaw by a different name, have existed for two years. They are voluntary. And there's been one formed, small one, the state that's got phenomenal feedback. But that said, you also you described your SU as a mini seesaw. Do you see realizing the benefit of the seesaw in your SU, do you see that this concept can be expanded with the larger SU, with a larger seesaw? And what's the limit? I mean, is it as large as a single district, or is it as small as one SU, recognizing that as an SU, it is emitting CSAW? So where is the sweet spot?

[Michael Livingston (Trustee/Board Member; retired educator; Sharon Elementary and White River Valley SU boards)]: I think, again, if I could get back to my previous answer, there are levels at which you can operate effectively that way. So again, in my district, which is one school, pre K through six, the supervisory union offers us an opportunity to pay for services that we could never afford on our own because we could never find a part time business manager for 20%. And we'll go right to the entire staff, IT, curriculum coordination. We then take that to the next step to look at those students who are now in the basement of a supervisory in an office in a program this year that is, we knew would be successful, but it's far exceeded what we had hoped for. That's applicable for almost any size organization. You don't have to be terribly large. WRVSU is the second largest geographically in the state, but it's 1,700 students, by no means the largest population. We do not have the size of the capacity at WRVSU to then make the next step for our most needy students who are being placed in many cases out of state at tremendous cost with little or no effective oversight. So I think that once we actually start to put some of these programs in place, not only are people going to be interested, it's going to be highly desirable because the outcome is better and the cost is reduced significantly. I think it's how we get the information out, which is why I spent time talking about leadership. Okay. Yeah.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Thanks. Thanks for your testimony. Really enlightening. But you struck me when you said scale on CESAs. It's like, Okay, you've got to hit certain scale to make the CESA. But then when we started talking about scale with students and that, people are like, well, we shouldn't really be touching that in maybe the elementary levels or in some of the other levels. It's shown to work by data, same with the C6. So why do you believe you get more pushback on when it comes to students than like CSAs? That's one part of the question. The second part is, just like the services you've already been talking about, why haven't SUs and districts and schools been already trying to share services? You know, we've all seen what's been happening at Tech, and I'm sure quite a few

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: have,

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Member)]: but not enough to start showing us any savings or, again, getting more efficient. So what is, when you make it optional, what I see is that you have a school district view that, like, we're fine. We don't we don't want any outside help. We don't we don't we're just fine when they may not be. So is it and that's what here at the state level, we're saying, hey. We're looking at a 100,000 feet. Let me see. Stop working. Now we're saying, get your stuff together or we're gonna start pushing. So first one was scale. We talked about for seasons. Why not students? And then is that the problem that SDs and SUs say, I got it, I don't wanna share services?

[Michael Livingston (Trustee/Board Member; retired educator; Sharon Elementary and White River Valley SU boards)]: My experience at First Branch, and I live in Sharon, so I have Butt Tunbridge, and right next door, Chelsea, two communities I really love and appreciate. We're talking about their children, their kindergarten children, busing them six miles from Chelsea to Tunbridge. It's about as close as it gets for a consolidation effort. That took a lot of conversation. It worked when we invited everybody to the table, including people who were very much opposed, and brought in some experts to share and talk about the student experience. So when we were able to focus on what's a student experiencing when there are six of them in school together from grades one through six, it became clear to folks that we were not optimizing their experience. And that changed the conversation center, Because we weren't telling them what to do, we were offering them evidence based on the experience of those children. That shifted the conversation. There are now people who are very enthusiastic for what we did, who I would suggest didn't use my name appropriately for a period of time. It wasn't a popular or easy discussion. But when faced with data based on children, it definitely moved people. So I think that's the key effort that we need to make with schools. And with seesaws, we're talking about services for children, not children themselves. Okay? And again, I'm repeating myself, but I think we have to look at tiered operations and support. My school, the Sharon Elementary School, is able to survive and thrive the way it does because we're in a supervisory union. We have local voice. We have say in what goes on in our school, but we have access to services that allow us to really think carefully about what we do with our kids.

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, thank you for bringing up California. I don't wanna date you or myself, but I entered the elementary school or the public school system in LA about a decade after that amendment. It's actually caused me to give a lot of thought to the tax policy side of this bill, because if people don't feel like their taxes are sustainable, they will do something very drastic. And it was California's probably greatest downfall. That has me looking in future years at the fact that the circuit breaker actually used to be a middle class tax break for people when it passed in 1999, that you couldn't spend more than three to 5% of your income on your municipal and education taxes. If it ended up with $7,000 that would be about $108,000 now. So we should recognize that California did it terribly wrong because they constrained the spending side and now their billions under the limit when they should have just constrained the tax side for low income and moderating people. What I wanted to get out with you, and maybe, know, this is out here to sort of ask you, we are hearing about where voluntary mergers with some challenges and losses went relatively well.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I don't want to

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: pick on rock filier, but we are looking at places where it truly does not. I haven't heard the explanation other than people don't want change as to why some of these mergers have gone down. And when you talk to people outside of public settings, you do get people talking about equity issues, and that there are districts that if there isn't a set of parameters around merges, then they will end up in a less optimal situation because somebody else doesn't want to partner with them. For example, my school district CVSD, biggest school districts in the state, they're very popular for the idea of mergers because there's a very high brand value. I'm going to say something and I love to be back, but I think we are going to have to get to the point at the end of a voluntary process where we say, you can't wait for your golden carriage to come. You have to merge with the districts around you for equity reasons, just as much as for financial reasons? And I'd love the reaction.

[Michael Livingston (Trustee/Board Member; retired educator; Sharon Elementary and White River Valley SU boards)]: I will attempt to answer that question. I think that our geography offers some credibly limiting factors here relative to consolidation of our schools. And I've certainly heard many people, including some educators, talk about the benefits of consolidating some of our schools to offer kids greater variety. Maybe there's a JV lacrosse program or two chess clubs, whatever it might be. Aside from the fact that you have to provide transportation for kids to get to from point A to point B, or now point A to point D, and then do something with them and for them between the end of school and JV girls basketball practice at 06:30 on Thursday night. My biggest concern about all of that is that as an educator, the one aspect that I wanna make most sure that we're representing well is that our children are known and valued in our schools. And there is that trust and respect that I talked about because that's where you see growth, not after school's clubs, and certainly not if you've got kids in a bus for an hour and a half in each direction getting to and from school. So somehow Yeah.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think that might be okay. I mean, I know we've talked about sports, we've talked to White River SU about this. I was using Montpelier as an example, because we have two high schools very close together. I mean, I know you're speaking more for a rural area, but we have to represent the whole state in this conversation and why we might have, we can't have two sets of rules for everybody, but we also need to recognize that we have high schools very close to each other. And that probably isn't even good for kids and doesn't really have a geographical necessity, basically.

[Michael Livingston (Trustee/Board Member; retired educator; Sharon Elementary and White River Valley SU boards)]: Well, if those conversations I I know people in Montpelier are having those conversations. It's a hot topic. Again, I think that the place that I would start is by bringing in people from the state who represent successful work with programs so that they're supporting a conversation as opposed to just a building principal or an individual school board. It allows those people in administration to participate as we examine what's best for kids and what's sustainable. Because if to and this is an if, okay? I'm not going make a statement about closing a school in this town, in this city. But if we can bring people together and look at the long term advantages and disadvantages, then it may just become a reality that one of those schools is going to need to close. That's not gonna be an easy decision for people to swallow. People are incredibly attached. I mentioned Chelsea losing its high school years ago. You walk into that town, that is still a hot topic, primarily because it didn't feel like it was their decision. And I think we have to give up people the opportunity to attend to these issues, at least first in a voluntary way, letting them know not as a threat, but that if we don't see enough movement in action, that the state may be required to step in. But I absolutely believe in from the bottom of my heart, because I've seen it, that we have the capacity to make those choices. Thank you very much. Appreciate The the

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: next two witnesses, I believe, are gonna kind of be together. Is that what I understood? That's correct. Heather Bushey and Morgan Tejoe?

[Dr. Jeannie Albert (Chair, Lincoln School District Board; Steering Committee, Rural School Community Alliance)]: Correct.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Let's play together. Okay. Of you is the Vermont, Heather One is from the Vermont Association of Pharmaceuticals and Morgan is Chief Financial Officer for Franklin Dorky's Supervisory. Introduce yourselves for the record and off you go.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Perfect. Perfect.

[Heather Bushey, CPA (Past President, Vermont Association of School Business Officials; Director of Finance, Essex Westford SD)]: Thank you everyone, nice to see you all. For the record, I am Heather Buschey, I am a CPA and I am the past president of the Vermont Association of School Business Officials, and actually Morgan was the president the year before I was. And I am also the director of finance at the Essex Westford School District. And Morgan, I'll let you introduce yourself for the record.

[Morgan Daybell (CFO, Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union; Past President, VASBO)]: For the record, Morgan Daybell. So I'm the CFO for Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union, and as Heather pointed out, I guess I'm the past past president of FASBO.

[Heather Bushey, CPA (Past President, Vermont Association of School Business Officials; Director of Finance, Essex Westford SD)]: All right. So we thank you for inviting us here today. I am going to be providing testimony on behalf of the Vermont Association of School Business Officials, and I'm just gonna name that, you know, our testimony is going to be quite different, probably from what you will hear, the rest of this afternoon and what you've already heard. And, you know, really from BASBO's perspective, we're really looking at this through a lens of efficiency and cost savings with an eye toward trying to achieve saving tax dollars for community members. And so, we very much share the legislature's urgency in addressing the current challenges in Vermont's education finance system. FASBA agrees with the widely held conclusion that Vermont's current education funding mechanism is no longer sustainable in its present form. And across the state, we are seeing significant inequities in spending between districts. We have continued cost escalation. We're seeing enrollment decline, and a system that is increasingly difficult for taxpayers to understand. And as business managers, we hear that all the time from community members. They just don't understand what we're trying to present to them. And these conditions undermine both transparency and public confidence. There's broad agreement that the system needs to be fixed, and VASPA supports moving toward a foundation formula as a more predictable and understandable approach to funding education. Foundation formulas are widely used across the country and offer a clearer connection between resources and student needs. At the same time, the challenge before the legislature is managing the transition to a new system in a way that does not reduce opportunities or harm student outcomes. As the committee considers governance changes alongside this finance reform, it is critical that those changes directly support the goals of reducing costs, increasing efficiency, and improving clarity and equity. Based on our members' direct experience, Supervisory Unions do not achieve these outcomes. Instead, they add an additional layer of governance and administration, and create lots of duplication rather than efficiency. This concern is consistent with the testimony that was previously provided by the Agency of Education and aligns with the perspectives that are shared in Annie Houston's recent testimony on supervisory unions in the House Education Committee. And if you haven't had an opportunity to watch that, I would strongly encourage you to do so. It was really powerful. As an organization, VASPO has consistently supported governance structures that reduce complexity, promote transparency, and achieve operational efficiencies. In that context, VASPO does not support the supervisory union structure as an effective choice in education transformation. Further, the added language that restricts the creation of school districts to those that have the same operating structure creates an unnecessary hurdle to work that will already be challenging to move forward. VASPA believes that there are mechanisms that could be used to allow for mergers of unlike operating structures without creating disadvantages to districts that have historically tuitioned some grades. FASBA recognizes that regional collaboration can be valuable, particularly in parts of the state where access to specialized services is limited and districts struggle to achieve economies of scale. In those contexts, collaborative education service agencies may provide a useful mechanism for sharing services. However, a mandatory CISA structure is not supported by VASPO. For districts that are already operating efficiently at scale, adding another layer of administration is unlikely to generate savings or improved opportunities and may instead introduce unnecessary complexity and cost. VASPA would be open to consider CESAs as a voluntary model where participation is driven by demonstrated need and local decision making rather than as a required governance structure applied uniformly across the state. In addition, layering CESAs on top of existing supervisory union structures risk compounding rather than solving the very challenges the state is trying to address. Instead of streamlining the system, it would effectively stack one additional layer of governance onto another, creating a level of complexity and inefficiency that could make coordination more difficult and result in increased costs. In contrast, VASBO strongly supports governance models that simplify systems while improving accountability and efficiency. Our members' experience indicates and research supports that appropriately sized supervisory districts, generally in the range of 2,000 to 4,000 students, are best positioned to achieve these goals. Districts of this size are able to realize economies of scale in staffing, purchasing, and programming while maintaining clear lines of responsibility and oversight. These structures reduce duplication and allow for more strategic allocation of resources. Importantly, these benefits are realized when districts are meaningfully merged into a single governance and operational structure rather than when additional layers are placed on top of existing systems. As Vermont moves forward toward a new funding model, it is essential that governance structures support that model. A foundation formula will bring clarity, predictability, and equity to the system, but only if the governance framework supports simplicity and accountability. Expanding supervisory unions or mandating CESAs increases complexity and administrative overhead without clear evidence of cost savings or improved outcomes. In addition, FASBO has concerns with the Senate amendment to H. Nine fifty five that strikes Sections twenty four and twenty four. Removing these provisions raises concerns, and those were the, sorry, the provisions on prohibition on charging fees beyond tuition, raises concerns for us about equitable access, particularly for students and families who may not have the financial means to cover additional tuition and fees that could be charged by approved schools. From our perspective, any policy change should ensure that access to educational opportunities is not dependent on a family's ability to pay and that all students can participate equally regardless of their economic circumstances. FASBO appreciates the legislature's commitment to addressing the structural challenges facing Vermont's education system, and we share the goal of creating a system that is equitable, transparent, and financially sustainable. To achieve that, we encourage the committee to focus on advancing a clear and understandable funding model, supporting district structures that are large enough to operate efficiently, but still accountable to their communities and allowing for regional collaboration where it makes sense, rather than requiring it universally. I think that our different perspectives from the different testimony you're hearing today is important. And really the question, which is not an easy question for the legislature, is which approach is actually going to deliver the outcomes that you're aiming for? So I thank you for your time, and Morgan and I will be happy to answer questions. And Morgan, as he said, works at a supervisory union. So, brings that direct experience as a business manager working in that complexity.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes, but I think maybe we could hear from Morgan at that time.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I don't think he had it. Think he was just gonna be a different question.

[Morgan Daybell (CFO, Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union; Past President, VASBO)]: I worked with Heather on the testimony and I'm here primarily to answer any questions on that.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And you're in a supervisor.

[Morgan Daybell (CFO, Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union; Past President, VASBO)]: Correct.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay, because I might say the same thing to you that I said to AOB the other day, but we have three days to pass something. And I think we'd all like to find facilities and cost efficiencies where possible, and encourage movement towards particularly regional schools. I guess I'll speak for myself. That's what I hope this bill accomplishes. And I think we would like to gather all the evidence we can for whatever we do, that that's what we're going to accomplish. And so, without knowing what the right answer is, I can tell you, politically, I don't think in three days, we're going to be able to achieve a push towards districts only. That is probably the majority of the emails we receive. I'm trying to lay out the political realities, so everybody is clear that in the next three days, if we are to work with you and others on something where we can say clearly this will move us towards cost savings, while also creating better opportunities for high school age students. What would you do if you were us?

[Morgan Daybell (CFO, Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union; Past President, VASBO)]: I definitely share your frustration of the timeline. And Heather and I were talking about the plan presented by AUE on Friday and really wishing that that was a starting point that come out in January or even the prior year to have that as the kind of the table setting argument. In terms of helping this bill in the next three days, I don't see any real magic bullet there. I think we'll just go back to a lot of concerns around the time and effort that potentially is going be put into the CISAs and also the drain on the field where, in theory, if you have seven of them or 14 or however many you end up with, they're going to need to be run by someone who is a superintendent or who looks like a superintendent and has a business manager who looks like a business manager. And then as you require things like special education and curriculum development and make those mandatory, that's going to be pulling a lot of staff out of the field where they're still needed. So that's a concern around the CISAs. I think Heather spoke pretty eloquently about the overall concern that even if you bridge that, it's unlikely that they're going to save any money. And where they have worked in other states, the issues around scale are significantly different. So in New York State, on average, they would have more kids than we have in Vermont in CISA. We serve more kids than we had served in Vermont. They also have statutes around caseloads for special ed that we do not have here. And those may be some of the drivers for the cost savings that those states are seeing.

[Heather Bushey, CPA (Past President, Vermont Association of School Business Officials; Director of Finance, Essex Westford SD)]: And I think I would say, Senator, that, know, at least from BASBO's perspective, we've been sort of consistent with our message. I've been testifying about supervisory unions for at least two years, and Morgan was probably doing it before me. I think, you know, we, as VASPO, really believe that CISOs should be optional, not mandatory. In Essex Westford, I can speak for my district, we have been able to bring special ed students, we've created therapeutic programs in house. We are at a scale where we can fully fund and support a good sized therapeutic program in district. And we've also created in school programs for some of our special education students. I don't think a supervisory union is necessary to do that. And I don't think a CISA is necessary to do that in all regions of the state. I think the issue becomes scale and you can have scale with a district or you can have scale by using a CESA, but I don't think they should be mandatory because some of them we can, in some places of the state, we can achieve that scale just through the district consolidation that we've already done previously.

[Morgan Daybell (CFO, Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union; Past President, VASBO)]: As kind of a hop onto that,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we have

[Morgan Daybell (CFO, Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union; Past President, VASBO)]: also, we've created an in house program students who in the past we would tuition out to alternative programs. We have been able to do that as a supervisory union for roughly 2,000 kids, but we have done it despite the supervisory union structure and not because of it, not because that was supportive of all. And we have two districts up here and it would have been easier if we were a supervisory district. Notably, we could have bought a building instead of renting a building and outfitting it. Districts can incur debt that supervisory unions can't. So we had to work around those challenges to be able to bring these kids back in district, again, which we have been able to do. And we've really only been able to do it since the passage of, I think it was Act 153, which, unfortunately, depending on your perspective, took local control of special ed away from school districts and put it to the Supervisory Union. So we still have this idea that school districts in a Supervisory Union have local control, but we were able to do this program because the legislature had already taken that away from them and made that an SD function.

[Heather Bushey, CPA (Past President, Vermont Association of School Business Officials; Director of Finance, Essex Westford SD)]: Did that help Senator? Did that answer

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: your question? Yes, I mean, maybe you can speak to the equity concerns that might arise, if we just let the foundation formula do the work. I mean, I think the reality that we should also continue to reiterate is that the foundation formula will happen, in the current configuration that we have either way. And that will probably hurt some districts sooner than it hurts others. And if you wanted to speak to that, I think the point of trying to encourage some scale, as you said, is also a concern about who gets left behind.

[Heather Bushey, CPA (Past President, Vermont Association of School Business Officials; Director of Finance, Essex Westford SD)]: Yeah, I don't know if this will answer your question. I think I'm understanding what you're asking, but I think, you know, it kind of goes back to what I said in the beginning is like the challenges to move forward with education transformation without reducing opportunities. And I think the goal of the legislature is to, you know, raise opportunity for, all students. And so I think it's certainly a challenge and special education is one of the areas that I know is being revisited under the foundation formula, which may give us an opportunity to improve what those numbers look like. But, you know, we don't want to roll out a foundation formula that in the end results in, you know, districts that are at scale having to cut tremendously, which thereby impacts opportunities for students and actually reduces opportunity and brings those student opportunities down. Did that answer your question? Did I understand your question?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes, and if you wanted to do anything in writing further.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We need to switch gears because super intendent of us has a hard job for you and we wanna make sure we get them on. Thank you and please feel free to stay on, when it's possible to get another question.

[Heather Bushey, CPA (Past President, Vermont Association of School Business Officials; Director of Finance, Essex Westford SD)]: Would you like us to stay for questions later or?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, certainly you're more than welcome to stay on and to listen to the rest of the testimony. We may have a discussion afterwards, we may be able to help with that.

[Heather Bushey, CPA (Past President, Vermont Association of School Business Officials; Director of Finance, Essex Westford SD)]: All right. We will stay on

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: in case.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Superintendent Boss, ready to go? Hello. Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

[Andy Haas (Superintendent, Windham Northeast Supervisory Union)]: So I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. I'm Andy Haas. I'm the superintendent for Windham Northeast Supervisory Union. My supervisory union covers the towns of Athens, Grafton, Rockingham, and Westminster. And I've been asked to speak to you all today just about the benefits of CISAs, voluntary mergers, and foundation formula. Just So to kind of begin, I think the logic, common sense, and a singular focus on what is best for our students must be our North Star. We strengthen our state level systems for measuring student success, growth, and instructional practices. We must, we can make clear data driven determinations about the effectiveness of any school, whether

[Ryan Herrity (Superintendent, Lamoille South Supervisory Union; Trustee, regional superintendents group)]: it

[Andy Haas (Superintendent, Windham Northeast Supervisory Union)]: is large or small, rural or urban. Every fiscal and structural recommendation below is designed to serve serve this primary goal. So the benefits of a CISA or the BOCES model. Drawing from my experience with regional services agencies in other states and as a founding member of the Vermont Learning Collaborative or VTLC, which is the state's first BOCES, which was launched in January 2026, I've seen how this model creates an essential scale without disrupting local governance. A CISA is a lean service provider, not an administrative governing body. It consolidates functions to protect local control by making community schools more financially viable. And some of those areas are around professional development. Currently in our region, 66% average savings has been found compared to individual hosting. With evaluation services, 20 to 50% reductions have been seen by our members, with an average of 38% average savings. There's been shared staffing with a 50% plus savings per FTE for part time per diem roles and out of district transportation with an up to 85% reduction via local therapeutic programming. Beyond these numbers, CISAs provide cooperative purchasing powers and expert vetting of con consultants at a fraction of typical costs. Anecdotally, I have observed a tendency for districts to want to own resources twenty four seven. If they even if they only need a fraction of the time, this mentally drives up costs significantly. By moving to a shared model, we can provide schools the expertise they need without unnecessarily overhead of full time positions for a part time need. As far as the foundation formula, a foundation formula offers a path towards fiscal sanity by moving away from the volatility of annual budget cycles. Currently, MySU must develop five separate budgets. Because the SU budget contains essential shared services like special education and transportation, any fluctuation in these costs creates immediate fiscal uncertainty for our local boards. When combined with the rising health insurance yield and CLA rates, we are often forced to present a best guess to our constituents. A foundation formula provides a multi year predictability, which enables strategic planning and steady staffing rather than reactive year to year voting results. Weighted special education funding. With this, we must, we must move away from the census based block grants. Funding must be tied to a student's specific special education needs, ensuring that money flows with the child and provide appropriate education in a least restrictive environment. Along with that, we need strong oversight. A weighted system requires state level guardrails to ensure ethical identification and effective resource use. And I believe we also need to decouple capital costs. School construction bonds should be separate from per pupil spending calculations so the essential infrastructure does not unfairly trigger spending caps and penalize districts operating standing. And as far as voluntary and forced mergers, and I looked at this as the the lessons of act 46. While we likely need to reduce the total number of districts in Vermont, there is little local support for forced consolidation. Our school system is under immense stress, and forced mergers are highly disruptive to students and staff. Effectiveness of choice, voluntary mergers are voluntary mergers succeed because they occur when they make financial and geographic sense like operators. SUs, like my district, Windham Northeast Supervisory Union, are already models of efficiency, utilizing collective bargaining and coordinated curriculum while maintaining local programming. We currently only have one collective bargaining agreement. We look to use RSU much like a supervisory district where we move a lot of resources to the supervisory union or to central office so that we are using a lot of centralized services. And then preserving identity by allowing for SUs, we allow for top down mandates that are often ignored at geographic geographical realities and administrative structures that rural communities rely on. I think we need we need to remember the bitter taste left by act 46 when communities are forced to change. Human nature is to resist and fight, and we should instead incentivize collaboration that respects local identity. In in conclusion, by decoupling capital costs from operations, moving to a needs based weighted funding system, and embracing the scalable efficiency of the CISA's BOCES model, we can move away from the mandated disruption of the past. Vermont should prioritize voluntary collaboration and shared resources to create an educational system that is both physically responsible and focuses on what is best for our students. I was told I only had five minutes. I'm long winded, so I tried to go as fast as possible, so but I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh, we have one. Senator Roberts.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Alright. Superintendent Hashim, were you saying that you achieved some savings from being part of a CISA and some savings from your SU structure or efficiencies?

[Andy Haas (Superintendent, Windham Northeast Supervisory Union)]: I'm gonna repeat back what I think I heard the question. Did I say that we have seen savings from a CISA and from our SU?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes.

[Andy Haas (Superintendent, Windham Northeast Supervisory Union)]: Yes. We just with the CISA just, you know, just starting, we've seen initial savings mostly at a PD level because we can instead of just trying to hire a consultant or go out and get PD just for our own district where we might be paying quite a bit of money, we're able to spread that cost out by the cease of being able to hire that person and then multiple districts going in. That cost is spread out. And then when are members who are not under, not members, but when there are individuals or groups that are not part of the CISA join in for that PD, they pay a higher rate. So, we did have a PD that was offered and members of the AOE joined in for that piece, and they paid at a higher rate. And so, that's money that comes in and helps cover costs or becomes extra money that comes into the CISA. So that's

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But PD?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Pardon me?

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: We're not sure what a PD is. I'm sorry, professional development.

[Andy Haas (Superintendent, Windham Northeast Supervisory Union)]: I'm a former special educator, so I use acronyms all the time. So please call me on it every day. So professional development. So when we are trying to do some trainings with staff and whatnot, you could bring in someone to do that professional development, and it could cost you quite a bit of money, $5,000 $10,000 and you can spread that out amongst eight districts. And so that cost goes down and you're having more people being able to access that. And then as far as within our SU, when we are moving things to the SU or central office level, we're then spreading that cost out more, obviously, amongst our districts. But then what we're able to do is look at how we are consolidating things. So where in the past, when I first came on, each district had technology and they had their own technology specialists at each district. And then they were buying different types of computers. And so we moved technology all to the district level. And now we only buy one type of platform and we consolidated all of technology. So that is one way that we are sharing that cost. And we did the same thing with, let's say copiers. And so we don't have multiple copier contracts. And so we are streamlining that piece. And so we operate our SU very similar to how we would almost operate a CISA, right? And so we find ways to find those savings. And to be honest with you, it's very similar how you would run an SD, right? Like you would just look at how you would find commonalities of savings and you buy what's best for the entire group as opposed to just let each individual district buy what they want to do or each individual school.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I just want to get everyone's saying something slightly different. Would you say that your SU has drawbacks vis a vis an d for you as a superintendent. We keep getting different opinions on like how much inefficiency and how much money that costs in an s u versus s d. And I just feel like maybe it's different everywhere.

[Andy Haas (Superintendent, Windham Northeast Supervisory Union)]: Well, I'm sure you're gonna get different opinions all over the place. I'm gonna acknowledge that and there's pros and cons to everything. Yeah, I go to more meetings because I've got four local boards, right? So then I've got the SU board, so I go to five meetings, a minimum of five meetings a month. But if I had an SD, I guarantee you I'd be going to five meetings a month because they'd wanna meet on different things. So I'm not gonna reduce the number of meetings I go to as a superintendent. So that's not gonna change. And if you made me bigger and I had more students, I probably would be going to just as many meetings in that sense. So I don't see any difference in that regards.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: As far

[Andy Haas (Superintendent, Windham Northeast Supervisory Union)]: as, you know, I lost my train of thought, I apologize. As far as trying to find any type of savings and doing those things, We try to, and I can't speak for every supervisory union, we try to operate as close to a school district or supervisory district as we can. And there are challenges at times when one of our local boards sure wants to do something that's independent. And I see that as my job as the superintendent to try and work with my boards to show them how it is to their advantage to fall in line, for lack of better words, to do things that the other districts are doing. But there are times that they will do things that will be independent of each other. And so, yes, it would be great if I could move a teacher from one school to another when I see some fluctuations in student levels, so I could move a teacher. I don't have that ability. If I had a supervisory district, I would have that more a little bit more flexibility. But now that my boards are starting to see that there might be an advantage there. We're starting to have those conversations. So we're starting to move that direction. And so how can we balance out their independence, but still be able to start maybe having some more flexibility. So I think it's a constant conversation of how can you balance out local control and see what is best for the students. Because that is what I always talk about, what is best for students and how can we do what's best for our constituents.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Thank you.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you. You're welcome to stay around. Have a couple more witnesses. One of them is right here.

[Andy Haas (Superintendent, Windham Northeast Supervisory Union)]: Excuse me, are you guys all set with me? I just wanted

[Ryan Herrity (Superintendent, Lamoille South Supervisory Union; Trustee, regional superintendents group)]: to Yeah, that's right.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You said you have to leave, I forgot that.

[Andy Haas (Superintendent, Windham Northeast Supervisory Union)]: Nope. Just wanna make sure. Thank you very much, appreciate it. Hey,

[Ryan Herrity (Superintendent, Lamoille South Supervisory Union; Trustee, regional superintendents group)]: Good afternoon, members of the Senate Education Committee. For the record, my name is Ryan Herrity. I am the superintendent of the Lemoyle South Supervisory Union representing the towns of Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe. I also serve as a trustee for the Windhamski Valley region. If you're not aware of that region, spans Belvedere down to Royalton, about 47 towns. So that makes up our our regional superintendents group. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your work on behalf of Vermont's children and communities. I wanna start where I think we all agree. Vermont's property tax burden is unsustainable, and the cost of education must be addressed. Superintendents are not here to defend the status quo. We are here with we believe this committee the decisions this committee will make in the coming weeks will have consequences. For students, for communities, and for taxpayers that will last decades. Getting this right matters more than getting it done quickly. This past summer, a bipartisan redistricting task force completed a rigorous statewide review of enrollment data, financial data, and consolidation research from across the country. They solicited input from more than 5,000 Vermonters. Their conclusion was clear. Forced consolidation is unlikely to lower costs, improve educational outcomes, or expand equity in Vermont. This finding is not an outlier. The research literature on rural school consolidation is consistent. Savings are frequently overstated, transition costs are undercounted, and the communities most affected are often those least able to absorb disruption. We should take that evidence seriously. I want to be direct about something because I think it's important for this conversation. School budgets are approximately 80% salaries and benefits. The only way to meaningfully save money in education is to have fewer schools and fewer adults working in those schools. Superintendents understand that. We are not here to protect buildings or positions. We're here to argue that those hard decisions about which schools, which positions, which communities must be made with accurate data, community voice, and a realistic implementation plan. Making reductions to staffing must be done in a thoughtful manner that leverages attrition. Closing schools must be done in a caring way that is incentivized through school construction funding. Force consolidation through financial pressure defers those decisions to new larger school boards distance from the communities they serve without any guarantee of the outcomes taxpayers are expecting. Bill H nine five five reflects important lessons from the redistricting task force. It recognizes that consolidation to succeed must be designed collaboratively. We support that principle, and we wanna help make it work. Superintendents are genuinely supportive of CISAs. CISAs represent a proven flexible model for regional cost sharing, special ed services, transportation, professional development, curriculum coordination that does not require dismantling community governance structures to achieve savings. My colleague, Superintendent Sousa, has spoken to you extensively on CISAs. I will not repeat that work here. What I will add is a note of caution about implementation. The CISA boundaries drawn in September raise real questions for the Windusky Valley region. The proposed service area appears to be far too geographically large to generate meaningful cost savings or functional collaboration. Larger is not always more efficient. We would ask the committee to build in a process for regions to provide structured feedback on proposed boundaries before they are finalized with clear criteria for what makes a CISA viable and cost effective. We also want to be clear about what CISAs are and are not. They are a regional service sharing mechanism. They are not a path to district consolidation and conflating the two risks undermining public trust in both. If this committee wants CESAs to succeed, and we believe they can, the distinction needs to be explicit in the legislation and in how it is communicated to communities. There's a foundational issue that sits beneath every other question in this debate. Vermont does not currently have the data infrastructure needed to make these decisions well. Today, it is difficult for a school board member, a parent, or a legislator to obtain basic comparable data about their local schools. Measures such as per pupil spending, academic proficiency rates, staffing ratios, average educator compensation, and school climate should all be easily accessible. That is not acceptable when we are asking communities to make decisions about consolidation. And it's not acceptable when we are trying to evaluate whether taxpayer dollars are being used wisely. The study committees recommended an H955 will be limited in their effectiveness until this problem is addressed. We cannot ask communities to make informed decisions without giving them the information they need to do so. Superintendents have consistently supported data transparency and accountability systems. We are asking this committee to treat the investment in data infrastructure as a prerequisite to the larger reform effort, not an afterthought. The AOE's current capacity to support large scale implementation is also a real constraint. The task force identified this explicitly. Any timeline for change needs to account for what the agency can realistically support without setting up communities and the reform effort itself for failure. Regarding the foundation formula, Vermont already has elements of a foundation formula in its current structure. The tax rate floor of $1 creates a baseline. And the excess spending threshold, penalizes districts that exceed 118 percent of the per pupil average, creates a ceiling. That $1 floor is essentially a foundation. The large range in spending creates significant and sometimes counterproductive disparities across the state that could be addressed just by adjusting these two variables. We are not opposed to education finance reforms, including a foundation formula or adjustments to the tax rate floor or excess spending threshold, but we urge the committee to proceed carefully and to require transparent, publicly available modeling before any changes take effect. Vermont has been through education finance reform before. The underfunding that preceded changes in the nineteen nineties and the unintended consequences of act one twenty seven are recent enough that the lessons should still be fresh. Careful modeling, transition mechanisms, and honest accounting for the two decade pause in state school construction funding are essential to getting this right. So in summary, as the committee considers bill h nine five five, we're asking to please consider these three things. First, invest in the data infrastructure necessary for communities and study committees to make evidence based decisions. This is not optional. It is the foundation for everything else. Second, move forward with CISOs as a genuine regional cost sharing mechanism with realistic boundary setting criteria and a structured process for regional input before boundaries are finalized. And finally, preserve community voice and democratic process in any consolidation decisions. And resist mechanisms, including the foundation formula that are designed to force consolidation outcomes through financial pressure rather than community consent. Vermont communities are willing to make hard decisions. Superintendents are willing to lead those conversations. What we need is a framework built on accurate information, realistic implementation capacity, and genuine respect for the communities that will live with these results. As my board chair said in a recent meeting, a good plan will sell itself. Thank you for your time and for the work you are doing on behalf of Vermont's children and families.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you. Question. When

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: you say or I'm just rereading your testimony here. You say resist mechanisms, including foundation formula structures that are designed to force consolidation. Are you referring to the foundation formula in general, or is there a specific aspect of the foundation formula and some other provisions that that you're concerned about, or is it the whole thing?

[Ryan Herrity (Superintendent, Lamoille South Supervisory Union; Trustee, regional superintendents group)]: Well, I think I think what makes me nervous about a foundation formula is if it's implemented and essentially, if the state says to districts, hey, here's the amount of money that you get, And now you're in a much larger configuration. And this new board that you're in is just gonna have to figure it out. So figure it out. You're gonna have to make hard decisions. You're gonna have to close schools, lay off people. But this is the amount of money that you get. That defers those hard decisions to local communities. It puts volunteers, school board members right in the crossfire, and it's not fair to those volunteers and individuals. And I I don't think it's the right way to go about transformation. I think that what it will do is it'll create a lot of disruption in communities, a lot of hostility, and it it really isn't destined for success.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I ask a follow-up, and then I have to go to our portrait unveiling for the Lavinia and Dorsey Bryant portrait where people will stay. Do you support the I think Superintendent Han referenced this as well, but I think what the Senate passed is pretty artful to keep bringing down the excess spending penalty threshold until eventually, if you're above a certain amount, your community's paying double for that privilege, and that money is helping to lower other people's tax rate. Yeah,

[Ryan Herrity (Superintendent, Lamoille South Supervisory Union; Trustee, regional superintendents group)]: I mean, think the excess spending threshold is a tool that's essentially what everyone is trying to achieve with the foundation formula, right? It's to get Vermont to a sustainable place where the amount of money we spend on education only goes up by a certain amount per year. Well, the excess spending threshold essentially already does that. So if we're saying we're unwilling to lower that excess spending threshold, we're really saying we're unwilling to have conversations around reducing the cost of education at all in the state. Right? And so what I think is we really need to have those conversations about what will be the impact of lowering that excess spending threshold. I think what we've learned in the past is that if we make those decisions without an off ramp and allowing communities to transition as those reductions are made, that's where we create a lot of chaos and a lot of harm to students and communities. So really, it's about that transition mechanism. So if we're lowering that excess spending threshold, but we're giving districts and communities a heads up that this is going to be happening over the next five years and you need to transition to this new place, I think we would stabilize property taxes. And there would be a lot of conversations among districts about becoming more efficient, voluntary mergers, ways that they can save money and transition. So in other words, we may be creating something that really is unnecessary based on the current tools that we already have.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can I ask one

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: more

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: thing? I've been trying to limit the number of inputs we're giving to schools to work with, right? There's an amount of money you might get via some financial mechanism. And we might want to create districts of two to 4,000. That seems to be the best practice. You're actually the person who raised the geographic issue first that has stuck with me because the largest school district by area in Massachusetts is two fourteen square miles in the first years. So I wonder if whatever we nudge people towards, we should be considering what's the best practice for geography and what's the best practice for the number of students.

[Ryan Herrity (Superintendent, Lamoille South Supervisory Union; Trustee, regional superintendents group)]: Yeah, I mean, I get very concerned about numbers like 2,004 arbitrary numbers, I think you can potentially have incentives, you can potentially incentivize the wrong thing, right? If you have a number and you say like in Act 46, it's 900 students. What we saw there, we have examples of people that said, Okay, well, it's 900. Okay, well, hey, I have a district next to me that has 100 students in it. It might be an hour away from me, but it's a 100 students. So we're gonna merge with that district because it's gonna push us over that 900 student threshold, so now we're safe. When in reality, we may have created a much more inefficient district structure because we added an arbitrary number instead of really looking at, will this district be better for kids? Will it improve education quality? Will it actually create more efficiencies? Or are we just setting a number because that's expedient? And I think that that's what always makes me nervous about numbers like that.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. A little more too. So so superintendent parody. So, in your summary, there are two issues that I strongly agree with. There's one issue which I need to push back on to have with some of the other testimony. The idea that I agree with is that superintendents are willing to lead the conversation. 100% agree with that. In fact, it was the local superintendents who sensitized myself and the county delegation to the issue that they're very professional. And talking about the superintendents, very professional, well educated, highly motivated, and they could take on more responsibility. Their concept was to start affecting more regional decisions as opposed to these community decisions. We're talking communities of a couple thousand. We're not talking about Burlington, what have you. So I wholeheartedly agree that the superintendents are willing to lead. The part I push back on, and again, I I probably push back on it in earlier testimony, is, the concept of community consent. Because there isn't community consent on where to go, what to do, how to do it. And we're in this stagnant phase of where for the past twenty, thirty years, the graduation rates for schools in my area, they've dropped by a third to a half. Graduation rates, graduating class sizes. Third to a half and haven't affected the schools yet. Okay? That's the part that, you know, it's kind of a tribalism, kind of a community spirit bumping into each other. So it's an issue whether you wear purple or green, and the name of your mascot, etcetera. That's the problem where the voluntary consent bit from a community consent is really gonna be problematic. And I haven't heard a lot of good solutions about how to address that via data, via conversations, via voluntary discussions and what have you. But again, if we could have, if we really could have done this as easily as it's outlined in these testimonies, would have already happened. And I'm wondering what prevented us over the past twenty, thirty years from recognizing the demographics, recognizing the effect on the students' education quality, and doing something about it.

[Ryan Herrity (Superintendent, Lamoille South Supervisory Union; Trustee, regional superintendents group)]: I it's an excellent question. I think, you know, for me, it comes down to accountability. We have a very weak accountability system in Vermont. Our data is not shared transparently. As I mentioned in my testimony, it's very hard for anyone to understand if the quality of their school is actually producing what they expect, if we're actually providing a good return to our taxpayers. And I think when our accountability system is weak, communities aren't aware, like you mentioned, your graduation rates have declined and potentially students are receiving a high, are not receiving a high quality education. An accountability, a strong accountability system would address that.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Which is, can you put it? Similar to, I was a

[Ryan Herrity (Superintendent, Lamoille South Supervisory Union; Trustee, regional superintendents group)]: principal in Massachusetts. Massachusetts has a five tier system. If you're in the first tier, it basically means that you're the top 5% in performance. If you are in the fifth category five, that means that the state has taken over your school district because you are underperforming. If you are a three, that means that you have started to become underperforming and the state intervenes and they provide you with additional supports and you have an opportunity to shore things up and make improvements. What that does is it drives continuous improvement. It puts pressure on school districts to ensure that they're using the resources. Okay.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So you had some community recognition of your high performing, low performing. Did it affect your salary? Did it affect your, I don't know, entitlements, employment? What it what net effect did it have for you as a as a leader?

[Ryan Herrity (Superintendent, Lamoille South Supervisory Union; Trustee, regional superintendents group)]: Yeah. Mean, was it was transparent data. It was shared with the community. The community, had high expectations for the schools, and they, would share that widely. And so you were aware, the community was aware about how your school stacked up and how your students were doing. And it wasn't only standardized test scores. I really wanna emphasize that because there's so much more to education than just narrow data points. It was really about climate data. It was about graduation rates. It was about postsecondary outcomes. It was about a lot of other things other than just narrow data points in that comprehensive system. That's why Massachusetts is number one education in the state, right? It's high levels of accountability, high levels of data transparency. And they have a system where your budget can only increase by a certain percentage per year. I think that's why it works well.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you. You. Thanks. I could leave. So I

[Patrick Green (Superintendent, Mount Abraham Unified School District; Trustee, Vermont Superintendents Association)]: Alright. Good afternoon, everyone. Boy, that's a tough act to follow. Great depth there. So good afternoon. For the record, my name is Patrick Green. I'm the superintendent for the Men Abraham Unified School District, and I am a trustee for the Vermont Superintendent Association. Thank you for inviting VSA to offer testimony today as you work to move H nine fifty five forward and thank you for your courage to engage continue to engage in this transformative work. I'm here today speaking as a trustee for VSA and not in my role as superintendent for MAUSD though I will reference experiences from my district and my region for context. The Vermont Superintendent Association did not take a formal position on H nine fifty five as passed by the House, but has consistently emphasized the following position following principles. The VSA supports efforts to advance greater equity, quality, and sustainability in Vermont's education system. Scale matters at all levels of the delivery system. Supervisory district minimum sizes of 2,000 students should be the goal where geographically feasible accounting for projected enrollment declines. Superintendents have engaged in the hard work and had the difficult conversations as required by act 73 about class size minimums as a state led approach to addressing scale. Repealing or delaying this provision would feel a bit like the rug being pulled out from under us. Any nuances that need to be worked out should be worked out in rulemaking, not by repealing or delaying the provision. The current funding system is inequitable. A well designed foundation formula would move us in a promising direction, providing the general provided the general assembly makes important decisions about missing pieces and includes safeguards against economic volatility and shifting political priorities. School size matters, but geographic realities and construction constraints must be acknowledged. And school construction aid is one of the most effective tools to support scale and system improvement. Now h nine five five works to move toward these principles in some meaningful ways. While it does not fully reflect what we originally recommended and proposed starting in January 2025, superintendents more than anyone recognize that deep change requires political will, broad buy in, and community engagement. That said, we would be we would be remiss not to point out that even what is already required in h nine five five will take considerable resources and staff time to work through, particularly the district merger studies and, to a lesser extent, standing up ceases. This is especially important to know as this body considers adding more requirements to schools. CESAs are not a panacea, but they are an evidence based approach to sharing services and resources. Many states use them effectively. However, they are not governance structures and will not solve all systemic challenges. We share concerns that if not implemented thoughtfully, CSOs could add another bureaucratic layer, especially given our already complex governance system. We're concerned about mandating specific services. Services should instead be regionally determined based on need. Now we recognize that leaving utilization of services offered by a CISA totally up to choice could risk the effectiveness of CISAs and their sustainability. We ask that you consider other guardrails to address this while allowing regions the flexibility to access services that match the needs of the region. The required merger studies are a constructive step toward advancing conversations about governance reform. However, these efforts are highly time intensive and will require substantial support from the agency of education and external consultants. Know in my district, MAUSD, and our neighbors to the to the West, Addison Northwest, engaged in a merger study a few years ago, a group of 17 people from the two communities met for eighteen months, once a month, before agreeing that we should pursue a merger of our districts, which was ultimately rejected by voters. Given the scale of this work and the time intensity that I described, we really urge legislature to take the findings of those merger studies very seriously in future sessions. Vermont's governance model must evolve, though we recognize that change must occur at a pace that reflects legislative consensus and public input. And therein lies the challenge with forced mergers. Despite many months of really hard work, it seems the legislature and Vermont citizens are no closer to consensus on change that we're willing to accept to create scale than when this biennium biennium began. Without strong consensus, at least in the legislature, the pushback that will certainly follow forced mergers could result in walking back some of the requirements, which might put us in an even worse position in the end. Not unlike what we saw play out with act 46 or even the class size topic I mentioned earlier. As much as we might wish forced mergers would result in creating the scale that we know is needed, history would suggest otherwise. We recommend offering construction aid and other such incentives to encourage district consolidation where it makes sense. As we consider the issue of creating scale to improve efficiency, I'm compelled to once again emphasize the importance of creating larger supervisory districts, not supervisory unions. Without restating all the details, supervisory districts are much more cost efficient, much more effective at creating equity, and as such, better able to direct time and money to support high quality teaching and learning. We see these three things as the essence of what act 73 is designed to achieve. We encourage the legislature to use the off session to find solutions related to tuitioning, independent schools, and local voice within a supervisory district model rather than further expanding supervisory unions. One of the most impactful tools in act 73 to improve equity around the state that also offers a strong cost stabilization mechanism is the foundation formula. We recognize that the current funding system is inequitable, and it will take all of us to build a thoughtful alternative that does not erode student opportunity or require a large and immediate tax hikes for certain communities. The foundation formula, as currently drafted, requires significant additional work. Many key questions remain unresolved, and safeguards must be established to ensure that adequate funding levels are not eroded during economic downturns or shifts in political priorities. We look forward to continued collaboration with the general assembly to address those gaps. And lastly, in response to the senate education committee's proposed amendments, the VSA disagrees with the fifth instance of amendment, which lowers the district size target from 2,000 to 1,000 students. The original language already allows flexibility for geographic considerations as practical, and the target should remain higher. We strongly disagree with the sixth and seventh instances of amendment in draft 1.2, which would remove the focus on contiguous school districts. Central office leadership plays a critical role in supporting schools, particularly during crises. There's no replacement for being physically present in school communities to provide the support. Noncontiguous districts undermine this function and risk further straining school leadership. As noted in testimony from the Vermont Principals Association, such policies risk turning principals into principal intendants. In addition, limiting the ability of communities with differing operating structures to explore merging into more efficient governance and operation structures dilutes the potential for meaningful governance reform. The legislature should encourage innovative thinking that respects historical patterns while advancing more effective and efficient governance models. We strongly disagree with striking section 24 of h nine five five. This raises significant equity concerns. Publicly funded students should have access to the full range of educational opportunities regardless of their ability to pay across both public and independent schools. And regarding inter district budgeting rules, as noted in prior testimony to house ways and means, we have deep reservations about being overly prescriptive. While the foundation formula determines funding levels, prescribing how districts must allocate those funds is overly restrictive. Districts are already implementing equitable budgeting practices tailored to local needs. If legislative action is necessary, one should provide guidance rather than impose rigid requirements. Thank you for your time.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Any questions from the committee? Yes, you have

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: a question. Thank you for your testimony. You introduced a new term, and I just wanted to understand it better. Used the term principal attendance. I'm wondering what I understand it's probably a bit of a poke, but what's the concept? What's the fear or the risk there?

[Patrick Green (Superintendent, Mount Abraham Unified School District; Trustee, Vermont Superintendents Association)]: I think the risk there, and it's related to the non contiguous districts, is if the area within a district that is not contiguous runs the risk of leadership in the buildings in that area or perhaps a building in that area on a little bit of an island that doesn't give them the same support that they might otherwise get if they were in a contiguous area. And I think that's the concern that that principal takes on something more than what other principals might be taking on due to that different level of support that they might receive.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Very good. Thank you. I just want to make sure I understood.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Hi, Patrick. So you said the study that happened took eighteen months, and then ultimately the voters turned it down. So I'm gonna pose the same question to you. If the voters turned it down and did the study, should the state then intervene and say, Look, we did the study, Gonna have efficient. They're gonna really help more importantly, but then efficiencies that are gonna help in, what would you what would your advice be there?

[Patrick Green (Superintendent, Mount Abraham Unified School District; Trustee, Vermont Superintendents Association)]: Yeah, I think, you know, the reason I made the comment about wishing that imposing a merger, whether it's school school mergers or school district mergers would have the desired effect is because I wish that were true. Like, that would be, like, the the swiftest way to achieve scale that that I think generally folks recognize as needed. I just think when I really reflect on multiple points historically, Act 46 being one of them and others, the response to forced anything is typically quite strong. Communities really organize around pushing back against what has been forced upon them, and they're quite adept at it. I can speak from, you know, personal experience. And as such, they're effective. And ultimately, change is made, things are softened, and I think we can land at a place that is in some ways even messier than maybe when we began. So I think that's the risk. If imposition was, you know, well received and people went along with it and we could all move forward and get accustomed to our new environment, I might feel differently about it, but that isn't what I've observed, at least in our region, but I think we're not unique.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you. We're going to actually take a break. Have a hard stop at 04:30, so we'll take a break until about 03:35, which is just enough time to stretch for a minute and then we're going to come back and we'll walk through the next graph nine forty five.