Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm live.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Alright. This is the Senate Education Committee. I'll be drafting the recommendation eight following a one p four. And we have with us counsel, St. James, and have a, I think, narrative and forward changes to look at in what would be draft, what is in fact draft 5.1 of page nine fifty five, reflective of our contributions yesterday.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Beth, thank you. Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel. I'm gonna share my screen because of the horrible blue highlighting. Cannot believe no one has explicitly asked me not to do this yet. So the first change is to section one in draft 5.1, which is the findings and intent section. I've added some findings that read, the general assembly finds the implementation of school district consolidation under 2015.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Can I stop? Mean, stop. These were from senator Ram Hinsdale. She had sort of intimated, I think, to all of us that she was working on this. And we said, put them in. We'll try them on and see what happens. So with that setup. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you just had intent language. So now we are having findings and intent, starting with findings. So the general assembly finds the implementation of school district consolidation under twenty fifteen acts and resolves number 46 resulted in the creation of larger supervisory districts and unified union school districts, which have achieved measurable administrative efficiencies, including reductions in per pupil central office costs and the elimination of duplicative governance structures while maintaining or improving student opportunities in many regions. Regional high schools serving broader geographic areas provide expanded and more equitable access to academic programming, career and technical education, co curricular opportunities, and specialized staff, which are often not sustainable at smaller scales. Research demonstrates that closing small elementary schools often yields limited or inconsistent cost savings once transportation, capital adjustments, and community impacts are considered and may negatively affect student outcomes and family engagement, particularly in rural areas. Nationally, the average public school district enrolls approximately 5,000 students, while the median district size is substantially smaller, commonly cited near 1,500 students, reflecting a wide distribution district scale across The US. In rural states, school district design must account not only for enrollment, but also for geographic size as districts are often measured in square miles. Larger geographic areas can present barriers to equitable access to educational opportunity, requiring a careful balancing of efficiency, transportation time, community connection, and student access to high quality programming. Approximately forty percent of Vermont high school graduates enroll in a two or four year degree program. This outcome does not reflect a lack of academic engagement, but rather underscores the importance of ensuring all students graduate with a clear and supported pathway, including high quality career and technical education, workforce entry, or further education aligned with individual goals and regional economic needs. That's the end of the new findings.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We have the last one again. Me just open up. Yes. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the next change from yesterday is on page 36. This is the study committee reporting subdivision of of section 13. We've got yellow to signify the language that we looked at yesterday. So the report's going to require the names of the school districts, the strengths and challenges of the current structures, what's the actual recommendation, and then an analysis of how the final recommendation will enable study committee members school districts to, under the foundation formula, maximize operational efficiencies, promote transparency and accountability, and encourage and support local decisions and actions that provide, and we've changed this to equal opportunities for an excellent education, all at a cost that parents, voters, and taxpayers value.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That changes reflective of we did on the very beginning rather than talking about equality. Just also talk about equal education, equal opportunity for excellent education.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yes. I'm looking at page 34, actually. And I know we had talked about language regarding the operating structures for our study committee. And I think that was language that was taken out yesterday. Oh, I It's was in a different it might have been in No.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't touched this. So that could just be something that I missed.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: think you're right. So

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know what you're planning to do today. But if you do plan to take action, I will get you a new draft that removes lines 15 through 20 on page 34. Is that accurate?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: I believe that. Can come back. I have it in my notes. Give me a minute. I can come back to it. I believe after some discussion, was what we had noted on.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: My apologies. I just missed that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Believe that the senator is correct.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Draft 3.1, it was on oh, sorry. Yeah. Draft 4.1. It's on page 33, lines one through six.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. I'll get you

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a new draft with that change. Thank you. We're gonna so we we went over the new language on page 36. And then the next change from yesterday, assuming I didn't miss anything, is page 61. And this is section 24, which now reads, It is the intent of the general assembly that under the foundation formula, no receiving school may charge individual families has been added. Tuition in excess of the amount of tuition paid by ascending school district pursuant to 16 BSA Section eight twenty three. And that blue period is to highlight the fact that anything after 16 BSA Section eight twenty three that appeared in draft 4.1 has been removed.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then the last change I made, I'm not sure if we talked about this in committees, page 74, to the class size minimum language. Line 17.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's yesterday?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You and I did.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh, there's some minor change. Just the flipping of the Go ahead.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You wanna tee it up or

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No. It was you tee it up.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay, okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Sorry. But

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: like, just, I was kind of

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: was a minor, we're on page 70.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay, I'm going back to 61 for a second. I was just not going to dwell on this, but is it like accurate policy language to say no receiving school may charge individual families? Is that like, I know I'm clear what we're trying to say, but is that careful enough policy language?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It was intent, since it's intent.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's probably fine.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. I I will say that if we were trying to still allow them to have international students, etcetera, I get what this is doing overall, but we might wanna say Vermont taxpayers.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is only for students on public

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: tuition. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And that's

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So then explain spoken then.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And then the change on 74 on top of page 75 is only to make crystal clear that the delaying of the clock for minimum class sizes applies equally to public independent schools.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The language that was in draft 4.1 and subdivision two. So both public schools and independent schools are required to file follow class size minimums. Those the statute with the class size minimums in them goes into effect 07/01/2026. The rules to implement the class size minimums have not been finalized yet. Section 29A, right? Yep, 29A Essentially delayed the clock, right? So in subsection B, a public school's failure to comply with class size minimums does not count towards the three consecutive years that enables the secretary to take action, etcetera, until the foundation formula takes effect. I had mirrored that language for independent schools in subdivision two. But because an independent school's ability to be eligible to receive public tuition, it's tied to complying with certain requirements, including class size minimums, which is different than how class size minimums affect public schools. There seemed to be some confusion over this subdivision. So I've reworded it to read, an approved independent school shall continue to be eligible to receive public tuition. If the school fails to comply with the minimum class size requirements until the foundation formula is in effect and all contingencies to the effect that there are any contingencies have been met, provided, however, that the school shall continue to meet all other requirements in order to be eligible to receive public tuition. So their failure to not meet class size minimums would not make them ineligible to receive public tuition until the foundation formula kicks in.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's a fact that's I think this is just to make clear that the clock does not start ticking for either public or independent schools until after the foundation of the building's effect. Is that accurate?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a little hard to say the clock ticking concept is easily applicable to both independent schools and public schools because the process to hold an independent school accountable for failure to comply with class size minimums has yet to be developed. That's part of the rules. But under statute 16 BSA eight twenty eight, one of the criteria that an independent school needs to comply with in order to be eligible to receive public tuition is compliance with class size minimums. So it's very easy to say the clock doesn't start ticking for public schools because there's an actual timeline built into the year. There's three consecutive school years of noncompliance, then there's two years of trying to get corrective action, and then the State Board could take action. Act 73 asks for the rules to contain a substantially similar process for independent schools, but there are no rules yet, so I can't reference the process. All I can do is tie it, this clock, to whether a school's failure to comply with the class size minimums makes them ineligible to receive public tuition.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: So maybe this has already been answered, but this seems complicated. Why aren't we just saying that it won't count for three consecutive school years of noncompliance as we say it does for the public schools as well?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because there is nothing that says an approved independent school has to be non compliant for three consecutive school years because that process is a process we've delegated to the state board to develop in rules, and that hasn't happened yet. We've asked for the rules to provide a substantially similar process, but I haven't seen it yet. So I can't make assumptions that it will be three years. So I'm tying it to the only thing in law that is concrete, and that is this independent school's ability to accept public tuition or receive public tuition.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: I get that. So why is this being handed to the school board, the state board, instead of us just saying, in three consecutive years, it'll be noncompliance?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was what Act 73 did.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: So that's already been in law then for a while. Yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And those are the only changes I made from yesterday. Was it did I miss anything else?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No. It's no. Alright. I wanna cross out that one for a vote. We can we can clean up afterwards.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For this bill, I'm gonna ask you to wait. Alright. Just so that you have the right draft number and everything Yeah. Has a nice bow on it. But I if you're ready to take

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: a vote, I can do

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that right now. Is that what you'd like?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, I wanna just I wanna actually not take a vote at the moment, but get a temperature check for people. So assuming this is the bill without one change, what are what are people thinking?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I have no remaining significant concerns. I did get other senators excited about the going education oversight committee, it may appear again. And I have asked, I just want to say this now, I have heard from some special education leaders, practitioners, etcetera, that they just worry the only kind of reference to special education here CESAs can create some efficiencies there, but they're really worried about the direction and governance over special education. And so I'm working with Beth on an amendment to bring next week to whichever committee has the bill so that we can, I mean, we consider it in here? But I just wanted to note that they've done a lot of work this session. I would say they're a group of people that really should have been consulted by AOE for their expertise and don't get consulted enough. And so they, you know, I don't want special ed to be this afterthought that we're just trying to find ways to save money, but we're still making sure we're driving towards quality and efficacy. I am working on that language as well. Okay.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: I plan on voting yes. There are things in this there are a number of things in this bill that I like. The only area that makes me a little concerned is just the methodology with the underlying guidance map for the school districts, the methodology used to get to where we were or get to where we are with that map. But, also, that's heavily balanced by the fact that it's just guidance, and there's language specifically that says the facilitators and study committees don't have to follow the maps. Aside from that, I am good with the bill and will be voting yes.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Weeks? Yeah. Really no change since yesterday. So I'm a I'm an opt out. I have an opt out perspective.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: You support foundation formula. You support the concept of BOCES or seesaws, but really these, they should be at a larger district level, not at a separate administrative design. So right now, I'm a no. No surprise.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. General Heffernan?

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Some of the concept, really light. We as I talked yesterday, I would have a problem with line three that we just put in this morning. Research demonstrates that closing small elementary school often I I I don't believe that needs to be in there. I I think they should warrant whether or not when a discussion in the regions should decide that, not have some wording that might discourage you from otherwise doing what might be the right thing. And the only part, there's not enough teeth in the end if they don't get to where we want to be. And we know where we wanna be, and we're getting a lot of resistance from it even though the public and school system knows where it will. So that's what this bill's missing. And so I'd be a no. I'm liking where we're headed with it, but there's nothing to get us where we need to be in the end. That's even doing your math to say, Here, this is what we want and make it happen. And here's the deadline. That may turn it to yet, but as it sets right now, too many, not enough. There's nothing to make us get smaller districts, nothing to other than talk about it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Williams?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, I'm sorry I was late. So I obviously missed something, but if I didn't, I'm still a no. I'm along with senator Weeks. I'm an opt out guy. I think that I think that we need to have more of our discussion in the in the final product beside around CTE centers. And making sure there's language in the bill that requires every school district to give opportunities for CTE for every student.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Don't wanna have a debate at this point about that, but I think the bill has a lot more headed in that direction than it did a couple of days ago, a few days ago, so.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: No, we're not there yet.

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

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can I, I do wanna clarify one thing, so it wasn't said later that I, I think I have finally gotten through to Senate Finance that I have deep, deep concerns about the property classification and taxation section of this bill? I'm a yes on the education policy components, but the other fighting tax components would ever end all of landlord tenant law and most housing agreements in the state, I'm not trying to be hyperbolic. So I have serious concerns. I'm working out with finance on the tax pieces.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: For our sanctions here.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I'd like to echo Senator Ram Hinsdale's point that I believe this is an education bill. It's largely been hijacked for tax policy purposes, and that's very unfortunate.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: For my partners to say that we were taking vote, I I did yes on our sessions, but I said the reasons why yesterday and so on.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yes. So we kinda seem to be dancing around the the elephant in the room. Are we going to take a vote or are we going to pause and allow another committee to do their work? What's the Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The finance committee is working now. We're not holding any on that score.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I don't wanna make a motion to vote if

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. No, we're not gonna vote. We wanted to get a sense of where we are. But I think for now, the only thing we have is that one change to the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I've made it, and Daphne has posted it, and we're just waiting on the Internet.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Is that now is that now at six point one?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Five point two.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Five point two. Okay. Okay. That's that's it for now on that. I guess we're waiting for Rick, right? It'll be on its way. We'll take a short break until it's official arrives for our new draft in section.