Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: We're live.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. We're back after a very short break. We have until 05:00. We've wrapped up. Are we at fourteen?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Nope, we're still in Section 13. We're on page 38. The secretary has completed the secretary's review or the secretary has not met deadline that this bill sets for the secretary, And we've moved on to the state board. So, we're on page 38, subsection D, line one. The state board shall issue the findings required under current law on or before 06/01/2028. What does current law require? Current law requires That the State Board consider the report and the proposed articles of agreement and the Secretary's recommendations. The State Board provides the study committee an opportunity to be heard. The State Board may ask the Secretary or the Study Committee or both to make further investigation and may consider any other information the State Board deems pertinent. And the State Board may request the Study Committee amend the report or the proposed articles of agreement or both. And then if the state board finds that formation of the proposed union school district is in the best interest of the state, the students, the school districts, and aligns with the policy set forth in Section seven zero one of this title, It approves the Study Committee's report and proposed Articles of Agreement. And then we move on to the vote. So, page 38, line three. If a study committee formed pursuant to this section determines that it is advisable to propose formation of a new unified union school district, the voters of each school district that is identified as necessary or advisable vote to form the proposed union school district in accordance with current law on or before 11/07/2028, which is election day. And then the results of that vote are the results of that vote. So, there would either be a Union School District formed or not formed. And then the study committee, there's a status report coming to you all in February '7 with the membership and status of each study committee. So you would start the session next year at least understanding what the memberships are and the status of any work they've done.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So if they decide not to form a unified school district, what options do we have?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: The same options that are available to you now, which are plenary. You could start a new voluntary process all over again. You could charter school districts. You could set some further goalposts for them to work towards. I mean, there's nothing in here that this language does not contemplate legislative action based on no union school district formation.

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

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: And Mr. Williams, that's where I wanted to say that we're gonna, if it's a yes, that it's gonna become a charter school by the state.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yep. I don't wanna give them the opportunity to kick the can down the road for another two years. That's all.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we had another report coming from the agency of education next February give us the status what the search will be set up both from the boards and and this to take any action if it appears that nothing has happened, but it's not happening.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: So section 17 are the groupings themselves, which I think would be best to use a map. Section 14. Sorry, section 14. But we've just walked through the entire study committee process.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I do.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: I actually have two questions. I'm gonna take us back, page 32, the establishment of the study committees. So page 32, line four and five, the facilitator shall consult with school district boards prior to finalizing the study committee membership. Is that I looked and looked and I couldn't find any other delineation of who the members are.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Members of what?

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Study committee.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: So the facilitator forms the study committee and the study committee by definition of

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Okay, that's what I thought. I didn't see any definitive except for the facilitator. Now, I'm not sure that's where we wanna go. Where are the school boards? Where are the current superintendents? Where are the CTEs? Where are the current regional high schools in this study committee? We're not being prescriptive in this case at all. And I'm wondering if that's It's either gonna be by design, that facilitators in charge, or it's not, that we give guidance.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: The study committee, by definition, because we're borrowing from current law, is made up of school districts. And current law dictates how the school district picks the board member that would be on the study committee. So it's school board members.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Good. Okay, I'll accept that. Second question, are we contemplating the ability for simultaneous overlapping study committees for regions?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: No, so you can only be by definition part of one study committee, but there is language and we didn't walk through it. I think it's because we skipped the reporting section. But if we move to page 36, line one, there is language that makes it clear here that if you are assigned to a study committee, lines one through six, if you're assigned to a study committee and that study committee determines it's inadvisable to form a new union school district, then you can form any other study committee you want. You could break up. And if there are two study committees that are next to each other that agree that this is not where it's happening in their current formation, those two study committees could break up and then form four study committees of their own or three study committees of their own and move on their merry way separate from this process. But no, language does not contemplate being a member of two study committees at the same time. And part of that is the legal implications of the end result being a vote of the electorate. And so, if you're a member of two study committees and they both want to form a union school district and the process goes to the voters, it's not set up. There is no way to say, I want to join this school district or that school district. It's binary. You join the school district or no.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Let me ask a question. Someone's on a brief hold, but Say the facilitator puts together a group that better makes sense, one of the districts goes, doesn't that make sense for us to be involved in this one, can it make sense to be involved in this one, Can they have that discussion and get moved?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, that language is on page 33, lines seven through 10. If a study committee identifies a school district as necessary that is not a member of the study committee or that is not a member of the SeeshaRegion or both, the study committee can work with the applicable facilitator to adjust study committee membership as necessary.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So 14 is the map.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: 14 is the map. And this is the language you have in front of you that came over from the House is that this is just guidance to the facilitators. They can differ from this guidance. They would just have to essentially document their rationale for that difference. Section 14A on page 42, line 11, are the interim reports back to you all. Subsection A is the interim report on the status of each study committee, and I'm going to add back in the final recommendations. And subsection B is preliminary recommendations for supervisory union boundary adjustments and seesaw boundary adjustments if you are to keep the seesaw concept. And I would suggest adding back in the language that says something about based on the final recommendations. Right? Yes, both constitutes. Yep. Those reports would be coming, these interim reports would be coming to you after the final report of the study committees is due, but before the rest of the process plays out to get to a vote.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: How do they come to us?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Let's see. You have the Vermont Learning Collaborative submitting the interim study committee status report, you have AOE submitting the preliminary recommendations for SU boundary adjustments.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: So just like any other report. Yep.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay, thanks.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Section 15 is the final report. I'm on page 43, line three. So on or before 01/01/2029, the lead is required to submit a written report to you all with a final report on the study committee process, along with an analysis of certain issues and whether or not they impacted the final outcome for study committees. And that includes staffing costs, operating structures, geographic and topographic barriers, enrollment patterns and projections, and anything else the facilitator found to have influenced the final decision of a study committee in either direction. And then on page 44, section 16. This is a final report coming back to you all from the Agency of Education in consultation with the study committees and state board with final recommendations for SU boundary adjustments and seesaw boundary adjustments if you are to stick with the seesaw concept. This bill does not change the fact that the state board is required to hold the power to adjust supervisory union boundaries. But this is asking the agency to make these recommendations to you all. And then presumably during the 2029 session, you would decide what to do with those recommendations. Section 17 is all the money for all the work we just went through. It's all coming out of the education transformation appropriation made in Act 73 last year. So it's money that's already been appropriated.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Chair, I'm taking I definitely want CISAs to be on the table if the region decides that is what they want. So do we keep the CISA in there? Or is it just an optional? Because I don't want to When you say, it says, And CISA families for the Agency of Education, that's saying, We want to see you do a CISA. And I want I've heard fiftyfifty on CISA, so I want the Regents to be able to decide that if they believe that this is the best thing for them or not. I think that's

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: a decision to have over time. Do we, okay, to make an installment? That's fine. So $10,000 is for the district?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: So $10,000 so subsection A is the study committee reimbursement grant. So study committees can be reimbursed for up to $10,000 in costs for legal and other services necessary for the report you're requiring of them and the analysis. It's done on a reimbursement basis. And at no point is AOE and the money is going through AOE, and at no point should that reimbursement trigger a payment of more than $10,000 total to the study.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Elsewhere, it says that if the district want if those districts need to spend more

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: They can

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: PDM basis.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Revert to current law. Yep.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Just to choose it a little bit. Yes. Is that going to be

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: enough for the study committees?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think they're going to get to the point that they want to go forward, but think it probably is enough for that much for the first round here of getting to the board? Because this is just thinking about the report, right?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: This is just that'd a process.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: That's meeting once a month,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: however times. I think when they'll be using that money, I suspect, for help with financial analysis, and maybe they still have the facilitator, but they may even consult into something like that, I'm not sure, might all go a different way, but I'm not one for wanting to spend money, but I also don't want to show them No, I know, I understand. I think it's actually partially working with them, they're not a buddy, actually had available to us, a button. Isn't to get to the point where vote gap is just to say, yeah, you think it makes sense to move to the next level and then that'll require even more double analysis, I suspect you're going to be in clinical, this is just to get to the level of an important standard. Hopefully it's not. And they can have, if they're interested in it they have to put in another hand between all of them, but

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: page 45, subdivision two is the total appropriation for that $10,000 reimbursement study committee grant. That $210,000 on page 45, line five, was based on a total of 21 study committee groupings. You have less study committee groupings, so you may want to adjust this or you may want to leave it as is, because the study committee groupings themselves could contain two study committees within one group. You don't know what the facilitators are going to do. So, I don't know that you necessarily have to change this, but just know that that 210,000 was arrived at by 21 times 10,000.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That was larger than that may indeed happen, so it should be.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Facilitator appropriation of the funds. So this is the money for the Vermont Learning Collaborative to hire the facilitators. Again, this is an allowable use of the Act 73 Education Transformation appropriation from last year. That money's already been appropriated. This is just of calling dibs on that money for this purpose. Dollars 442,000 is the appropriation. That is, I believe, approximately 50,000 per facilitator, plus 60,000 for the lead facilitator, plus 32,000 on line 16 that VTLC may use for administrative costs. And I believe those numbers came from themselves.

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

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: checkbook on that, do you know?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: These are all funds that have been appropriated to the Agency of Education last year in Act 73. And you're saying we're going to take some of that money and use it for this.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: On page 45, line 18, Seesha Executive Director Grant. If you continue with the creating Seesaws in state law, you are giving every Seesaw that is not already up and running $50,000 towards hiring their first executive director. And then we get into I'm on page 46, section 18, line 10. This is an amendment to the effective date section of Act 73. So, this is where the contingencies for the foundation formula live. So, you'll see on line 13, there's an amendment to the effective date for the December 1 letter changes that took place in Act 73, moving those changes from 07/01/2027 to July 2029. Don't ask me anything about this because I don't know anything about the December 1 letter. If you do have questions, I can circle back with John and Kirby on this. Subsection F on page 46, line 15, are the foundation formula contingencies. So, you can see the first change here on line 16 is that the foundation formula is contingently effective instead of on 07/01/2028, on 07/01/2030. The language on lines 16 through 19 and then one through two was the contingency. Actually, language online, the very end of 16 through the first third of line 18 is the contingency that was related to new school districts as contemplated by Act 73. That language has been struck and replaced with, on page 47, line three, a new condition.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That was the map, if you will. And now the map has been struck.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: So if you read Act 73, the phrase as contemplated by this act was referring to the school districts that you were supposed to charter this year based on the recommendations of the redistricting task force, and we have not done

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

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: if you leave that, I would just say if you leave that language in, you're never going to have a foundation for it. So, a new contingency on line 47, line three was added. And that is that school districts have had an opportunity to study the advisability of forming a new Unified Union School District. And the clerk of each school district voting on a proposal to form a new Unified Union School District pursuant to Section 13, essentially. But we can't say that because we are actually amending a different piece of law. So, we can't refer to Section 13. We just have to vaguely describe it. So, we're saying pursuant to legislation enacted by the General Assembly in 2026 that requires each school board to participate in the study committee to study the advisability of forming a unified, union school district, has certified the results of such vote and to the extent that such votes occurred to the Secretary of Education. So, contingency says is, if school districts have had an opportunity to go through the Section 13 process, and if that process results in a vote, the clerk has certified the results of that vote, then this contingency has been met. It's not dependent on a specific outcome.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Question. Yes. Who who is the the keeper of the dates? I mean, if there it seems like the they're gonna come back to the education committee. We may all be different by next election. So who's who is the interim? Who's gonna keep track of this stuff to make sure that they ride herd on all these dates and responses coming back to us?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Whoever's sitting in these seats next year.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: That's comforting. Can we hire somebody to keep track? Can

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: we Technically, you have, And you're talking to her.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay. You're not Yeah. Going

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: So, assuming I don't go anywhere.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Which the game time decision. Yeah, that'll be my job, right? When you all are, whoever's sitting in these seats next year is impaneled, part of my job will be to catch them up on what you all did this year. And it'll be painfully walking them through all of this.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Or maybe not painfully because it will be all of you and you will have memorized this.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Right.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So are we clear on that contingency? So each

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: group will reach that conclusion?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: It is literally that school districts have had an opportunity to participate in the Section 13 process.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, yep.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: And I have been asked before, what does that mean to have an opportunity? And from my legal perspective, unless there is some sort of active nature that is physically preventing folks from coming to the table, I believe in finance, used the example of a sharknado, hoping that folks would remember that I said sharknado with MINI, and they would remember this, say, when it didn't work. Now I remember Shark Committee, though. So, if there's another global pandemic and no one can meaningfully participate, has anyone had an opportunity? I think that's debatable. If an earthquake cuts us in four and half the state falls in, have we had an opportunity? I'm thinking an active nature. If someone is exercising bad faith and not participating, then I would argue they've had an opportunity to participate. Okay. The second contingency for the foundation formula to take effect is actually current law. But we've changed the formatting so it looks like new law. And that contingency is that you get the JFO report back. That's page 47, lines 11 through 13. Line 14, page 47 is a new contingency. So, on or before 12/15/2029, JFO has provided the General Assembly with an analysis using fiscal year twenty seven data that compares the total appropriated state funds each school district received under Vermont's existing education funding formula, so current law, with those the school district would have received under the foundation formula established in 2025 Act and Resolve 73 as a method. And then the fourth contingency that would need to be met in order for the foundation formula to take effect on page 47, line 20, subdivision D, is that you all have enacted legislation that addresses the following. Suitable geographic measures for determining sparsity within the foundation formula. I'm on page 48, line three. Whether it costs more to educate a secondary student than an elementary student. And if so, what's the appropriate weight for that cost differential? How to account for the provision of CTE within the foundation formula? How to account for regional differences in operating costs, including those driven by regional differences in cost of living and legacy collective bargaining agreements within the foundation formula, and how to fund special education services, school construction, renovation, and repayment of school district debt, transportation, and universal prekindergarten.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Question here. So, do we have to, we're not doing, hypothetically, if we're not doing the mandatory CESAs, would these components also need to be, well, I'm looking at actually more specifically the suitable geographic measures because we're not really doing anything for geographic measures. Does that need to be incorporated or revised because we're not doing anything to people?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: I believe this is more of a reference to the small and sparse schools grant and how we determine what's a small and a sparse school. Believe that's what that's referring.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Can we say that maybe? If that's what That's it a policy question, so.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: So suitable geographic measures for determining sparsity within the foundation of prime life. I believe this is in reference to Do you all remember the debate over zip code or no zip code last year when we were talking about sparse areas? Yes. I believe that that's what this is getting to. What is the geographic measure for determining sparsity?

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Anybody?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So I think I would just actually, to the extent we wanted to say what it means, and I had read it maybe a little vaguely at first too, but I think you've actually misheard that it actually does say what it means.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: I have just received an urgent message from my colleague, John, who said that I was exactly right. And essentially, we be measuring sparsity by town, city, zip code, or something else? There were issues with all of those last year. And so, this contingency is saying that the foundation formula only takes effect if everything has been met, including whether you have passed legislation that figures out how to measure sparsity. What's the geographic measurement that you're using?

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So do we come back to that or do we do it now? I know we're running out of time today, but

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think we're hearing that it actually makes sense as because that's the challenge, figure out the appropriate geographic measure for determining sparsity. I think it's one of those times when you have to get your arms around it, but actually it does feel exactly what it's, it sets what it's intended to do.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay. Stick a pin in it. Yeah. Back to it, right?

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Okay. Just for clarity, page 47, line two, all the following conditions have been met. It goes down to bottom of page 47, line 20, that there is legislation enacted to address all the following with a great big list on page 48. I'm a little concerned about line eleven and twelve, how to fund all of these high cost issues, special education, school construction, repayment of debts, transportation, universal pre K. This language was all out of the house, correct? And this is all new language added on that obligates us to solve all these problems within a couple years, by 2029, correct?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, that is accurate.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Just wanna make sure it was very clear.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: That was my point. So who we're not gonna do it. I mean, you don't want me balancing your checkbook. So who's who's gonna get designated to do it?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: I I believe what this is trying what this language is trying to get at is all of the outstanding policy decisions you haven't made yet within the foundation formula.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Can I give a hypothetical? Say, for example, the next biennium's Senate Education Committee votes to not support universal prekindergarten. That's a hypothetical.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm not

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: saying it's a positive or negative decision, but this kind of obligates them to solve universal preeducation, prekindergarten.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: If Senate Education Next Year decided to not fund universal pre K, you would probably want to repeal section 166, not 166, section 169. I can't even remember at this point your pre K statute. 166, thank you. And then amend this section.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Okay. And likewise, transportation, providing transport. What does it really mean when we're supposed to enact legislation for transportation? One hundred percent of Vermonters students are transported.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: The contingency doesn't tell you what the legislation should be. It just says that there has to be legislation to get at this.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Thank you. I'm a little concerned about that particular paragraph. I think it's Paragraph B. It's a ton of issues. It's a ton of money. And each one is a policy decision, Seems kind of odd that they've stuck them all up here.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: On page 48, this section has been further amended to delete sections of the bill from the effective date section that were further amended later on by my colleagues in the rest of this H. Nine fifty five. So, Section 45B of Act 73, I believe, is repealed later on in September. Same with the supplemental district spending cap transition and the tax rate transition. Sorry, the educational opportunity payment transition. Anywhere you see a section deleted in this effective date section, I believe that corresponds to some change in the underlying Act 73 language that comes later on in September that John or Kirby would walk you through. On Page 49, subsection G is the effective dates for two subsections in the tuition section that only this is for receiving schools to be able to charge 5% more of the base amount if there's no high school weight. And these were the contingencies for those two pieces of law to take effect. And because the new school districts contemplated by this act is no longer really a relevant concept for you to work with, the language for the contingency is the same as for the foundation formula regarding having an opportunity to participate in Section 13. And then it keeps the rest of the contingencies from Act 73. And then subsection H is Regional Assessment Districts. I believe that the fact that this has been deleted from the effective date section means it's somehow been amended further on in this bill.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: If I may, going back to G, the tax rate transition, and what you described, what does that mean then? Is the 5% going to apply or no?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: So, G is for tuition, and it allows a receiving school, both public or independent, to charge up to five high school students, 5% more of the base amount for high school students, if there is no high school weight. And so, that is contingently effective on an opportunity to participate in the study committee process. And that the cost factor formula foundation report, foundation formula report that JFO is going to give you next year finds that it does cost more to educate high school students, but you don't actually enact a weight. So it's kind of a safety net there.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So if there's no high school weights

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: They can charge more.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Can charge. But if the report comes back saying that they don't need to charge more, then they can't charge more.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: The report needs to come back with evidence that it costs more. So if the report comes back with no evidence that it costs more, then I would say this contingency has not been met and that they

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: could have lost. Even if there are no high school weights, and they still wouldn't be able to charge the 5%?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. The way this is written, yes. Do you want to just keep going, or did you want to spend, we're getting close to the end of the day, setting any kind of game plan for tomorrow or level setting or?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: All I can do is keep going for a few more minutes and then we'll have some changes tomorrow for some of the things we talked about and otherwise we'll pick up sections we haven't discussed.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: So we're on page 50, line five, section 18A. This section requires the Department of Taxes on or before 10/01/2027 to publish on its website an interactive education funding calculator that enables a school district or a union school district study committee or really any member of the public with access to the internet to calculate an estimate of the total education funding from the state that the school district received under Vermont's current education finance system in fiscal year twenty seven, and the estimated total education funding it would have received from the state under the new financing formula had it been effect in fiscal year twenty twenty seven. The calculator is required to reflect education finance policy choices that you all make next year. Tax is required to consult with JFO, AOE, and the Department of Finance and Management, and they are required to submit a preliminary plan for the calculator to JFO and AOE for feedback, and they're required to submit a preliminary version of the calculator to the Joint Fiscal Committee on September 27. So, the purpose behind this is so that either a study committee or a school district operating on its own would be able to plug their numbers into a calculator and get an estimate of what they would be receiving under the foundation formula versus under current law.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Did JFO say they could handle this in time to do that?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: It's the Department of Tax.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, sorry. Did they say

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't any remember if I was there testimony related to this.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: You have a question?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Pre K education, page 51, line six. Some findings related to Pre K education. Do you want to go through them? Despite being colloquially known as the universal pre K program, not all children three and four years of age in the state have equal access to a pre qualified pre K provider. Vermont ranks second in the country with regard to access to pre K by children who are four years of age, seventy six percent of eligible four year old children receiving pre K education, and that Vermont is one of two states in which more than seventy percent of children who are four years of age receive pre K services. Only 11% of eligible children are enrolled in pre K services in Essex County. And there is considerable geographic disparity in the state with regard to the number of pre K slots available. And as a result, 95% of eligible children in Windsor and Windham Counties and 93% of eligible children in Chittenden County have access to a prequalified kindergarten provider as compared to 55% Franklin County and 61% in Grand Isle. And while a substantial portion of states provide a full school day of four or more hours of pre K education daily, less than 5% of Vermont's pre qualified pre kindergarten providers provide a full day of four or more hours of pre K education. Section 20, I'm on page 52, line eight, is legislative intent language related to pre K. It is the intent of the General Assembly to ensure that pre K is included as an integral part of Vermont's education system, as the right to education is fundamental for the success of Ramat's children in all grades, Pre K through grade 12, determine a locus of responsibility to ensure there is access to Pre K education within all school districts, provide access to licensed teachers in the classroom of both prequalified public and private providers, including access to support provision status, provisional status, and equalized financial resources for all pre K providers, pre qualified providers of pre K education.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: What

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: was the driver behind this?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I don't know. This was this was this came with a mouse.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I get that. Why and so they just threw it in there, but they never gave us I know what the intent is, but why why is the reason?

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Probably to make sure it gets addressed.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think the sense of the house was is that providing universal pre k is policy will support. Senator Hinsdale,

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: do you have any

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: We're

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: on K. Wonder if you have any mindset or input why they put that in. That is becoming a bigger concern for the state about our pre Ks.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, it's interesting that you mentioned that on geographic lines, but pre K system we've created works much better if you have private pre Ks in your area, because they can charge the parents for the extra cost of attending. It's like we have a school district that does charge parents, but they aren't going to charge them the same amount that is charged at a private pre K. So wherever you have the school district providing the pre K, it's potentially underfunded because we designed it for access to pre case that will charge the rest when you go above the order weight at this point. And if we go to a halfway, if you're doing it through your school district, they're probably going to do it all five days of the week. They don't have the same, you know, half, you can't do your child two days or three days or whatever, you know, there's not as much choice.

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: So the system is unfortunately not well designed if we want to do full public pre K access, and there are places where they don't have private pre K access.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: My concern, Terry, is we're struggling in the education system already, and you're trying to add in another There is time to do this, but I don't know if now is the time.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. So was there an appropriation for this on-

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: So we haven't done anything yet. We've just walked through intent and findings language. Section 21 is the actionable language. So, on page 53, line 20, moving on to page 50 Sorry, page 53, line one. It is the intent of the General Assembly in the twenty seven legislative session to establish a funding structure for pre K education that supports achieving access for every pre K child, the equitable payments and equitable education standards for public and private providers, ensures the cost of pre K is included in the full cost of education, increases access and participation in areas of the state where access or participation is limited, it continues to support a mixed delivery system. So, it's your intent to figure out funding that does all that next year. You're asking?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: You probably would have mentioned this if it was an issue, but how are we able to tell the next IAM, the future General Assembly, what their intent is if they have not been impaneled as the Legislative?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: You're not binding anyone's hands by just saying it's your intent to do something. So you can't bind your hands even if you wanted to. This is very common language when you want future you to have this problem. In fact, the entire intense section of Act 73 used this concept. Okay, so subsection B on page 53, and it's four fifty two. I'm gonna turn into a pumpkin at five. Data and reports. The Agency of Education, DCF, and Building Bright Futures shall establish the system to jointly monitor and evaluate pre K to promote optimal results for children that support the relevant population level outcomes and to collect data that will inform future decisions. And then BBF in consultation with AOE and VCF is required to report annually to the General Assembly in January. On or before 12/01/2026, BBF in consultation with AOE and DCF is required to submit a separate written report to you all with the following information: the status of their work under their federal preschool development grant and data collection, initial or updated findings, including Pre K student demographics and the number of hours by Pre K program by district, outstanding questions or gaps in data that they're finding, and recommendations for legislative action and other considerations. BBF is also required in this report to update their progress on their work under that federal grant to the Joint Fiscal Committee on or before 10/01/2026. And then JFO is required to contract with a contractor with expertise in Vermont's education funding system to conduct an updated cost of care analysis to account for the provision of pre K within Vermont's education finance system. The contractor is supposed to utilize a bunch of recent cost modeling studies. They're supposed to rely on the statewide tuition rate for pre K. And they're supposed to collaborate with DCF and AOE and PBF to ensure that the necessary data and appropriate factors are included in the financial modeling. The study is required to provide estimates for the current full cost of providing pre K for children three, four, and five years of age not yet eligible to enroll in kindergarten. And there's an appropriation for 75 grants to JFO to hire that contractor. And then JFO is also required to provide you with considerations on or before December 15 regarding different funding mechanisms that may be used to distribute funds for education costs within the new finance formula, including grants, inclusion within the education opportunity payment, and different forms of categorical aid. This is trying to get at the fact that you have different policy options and how to pay for certain parts of the education system. The education opportunity payment was modeled with different assumptions on what it paid for. And so, if something is not included in the EOP, what are other ways your education system could make that payment, including grants or categorically? And then Section eight twenty nine is your Pre K section. Oh, that's why I was thinking 166. It's Act 160 Section eight twenty nine is the Pre K section. Section 21A on Page 56 is an amendment to the Pre K statute that requires school districts to report to AOE annually with the number of pre K hours each pre K kiddo whom it is either provided pre K or paid for tuition for pre K on the section in their district. So, how many hours of publicly funded pre K do their district students get? We don't have that data right now. And then an amendment to Subsection E, which is the rules subsection for Pre K, it adds Building Bright Futures to the Agency of Education and DCF as the entity is responsible for jointly monitoring the Pre K system. And that is the last piece of the Pre K section.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, stop. Okay. So you've taken us to the top of page 57, right?

[Daphne (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, page 57, data collection, section 22.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Walk through with any changes. That's where we'll start tomorrow. Okay, Daphne, we are adjourned. Thanks, everybody.