Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We are live. Okay. We are live. This is Senate Finance on May 20. We are winding down. Committee will probably be catches catch can from now on. I think we have two or three bills up there. We're gonna try to get out. And so we're gonna get Senator Romansdale.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you, madam chair. For the record, senator Kate Ron Hinsdale, head of education, we're talking about h six fifty, which is, I would say, the legislature's first attempt at regulating educational technology. If I could use the majority of my first minute to I don't know if it's preempt or support the testimony of others. I think what you'll hear from a lot of the other stakeholders in the education system is that they feel they are self regulating well. There is no mandated system. There is no statewide system for overseeing and regulating what educational technology is used in our schools. There are a number of coalitions and labels that are referenced in as we talk about software, but really then it is up to the superintendent, the principal, the IT director, or educational technology director of a school to determine what their kids are going to see and what is age appropriate in terms of that design and that access. The education committee in a unanimous vote felt that was of concern, that it is not being regulated in a way that parents, children, educators are all on the same page about what is a good practice as more and more states look at how to regulate education technology. There are concerns that it may also conflict with the kids code. The certifications or standards you might hear about are the Student Data Privacy Consortium, which is a national organization that looks at student data privacy.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: What's that?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I would say between that and ISD certification, which is more about the educational efficacy and is national, you're still talking about industry helping to set the standards for their own regulation. We've heard from many health professionals and education professionals who are doing research to demonstrate that those standards really aren't something we as lawmakers or policymakers at the district level can use to say this is a safe product. It is not extracting data or or tracking data from our children, and there was very little on educational efficacy. And I went really deep down that rabbit hole of what is good for our kids technology wise, but what is even neutral for our kids technology wise. The final thing I'll say is we have an amendment. We haven't had a chance to look at human education just given the floor schedule, etcetera. But the we I've had a chance to talk informally to members of the committee and the chair, and they understand that for the rest of the language to survive and for us to take a good hard look at what's happening with educational technology in our schools, that we regrettably, I think, take out the chatbot two year pause and make that part of the study instead. We have some changes to the study language so that it's stakeholders and legislators. The reason it had been legislators previously is because then we are staffed by legislative council. So you may hear concerns that AOE doesn't wanna do this. I I would argue that this is a needed new area of oversight, and we cannot just leave it to the existing entities like VitalLearn, who you will hear from, I think, through AOE to self regulate. That to the education policy committee is not working. So now the bill is largely a product registry, and you can ask the secretary of state's office about that. There is one bill advancing that looks like it's gonna make it to the governor's desk on registration of franchises, I think, that came to this committee. So we have heard informally from the secretary of state's office that to the extent practical, they can use the work they need to do under that bill to also create other drop down options that have been contemplated this year. And that is speaks to the value of having a study group that that helps to look at those dropdown options to meet what was originally kind of more the house's intent. I think it has value to try to look at educational technology products in schools. But I think as you all know, the Secretary of State's registry system is not enforceable. So it's not going to be complete or perfect data that we get going forward.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We'll make changes. You can get an amendment Who wants

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So right past the

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Right past

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: the language. If I'm like, I've been trying to find my own chair to see I

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: was gonna say, is this coming from education?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: It is. I mean, it has been relatively blessed by the chair, but we have been a pretty disjointed group, so I don't wanna mischaracterize it. They know the gist of taking out the Chatbot Pause, and I just wanna be clear. The Chatbot Pause did have a major I wouldn't call it a leapfull, but sort of a a major procedural give that we thought was principled, which is that you, someone in your school building should be responsible for what is in front of kids and how it's being used. And so this was to say, you know, we want districts to on the side of not using relational AI chatbots, things that any person, including children, may perceive to be a human or a friend or a relationship. But if you are using that, that the principal should know about

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: it and approve it.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I think that's where you saw a lot of the emails come from. And I'll just say, you know, I Right. Like, I find it disappointing in the sense that I think parents are gonna wanna know more and more who they're supposed to talk to about what their child is accessing at school, and someone should know and be able to answer those questions.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah. Education does. Like to have education. Yeah. I'm gonna move us on to Okay. Find out what it is.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I will go seek out my chair. Manager, do you want me to come back with a vote for you or something? Uh-huh. Possible while you're meeting? Yeah.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Would be good if you get a vote. We have

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: to tell you to hear from Rick or not, but Rick does have the amendment and it is on your website in case you wanted to go forward.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I know. I've got people that are sitting here and the community conference is arriving at forty five minutes. Okay. Yeah. Thank you both. Thank you. After that. So I'm going on to Joshua. Do you have your name there? Yes. Hi

[Josh Bloomberg (Educational Technology Program Manager, Vermont Agency of Education)]: there. Yeah. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on h six fifty. So my name is Josh Bloomberg. I'm the educational technology program manager at the Agency of Education. And I'm hoping that my testimony will rightly target what senator Rahm Hinsdell was pointing out in terms of amendments because I was trying to digest it just before this meeting. I'm gonna focus on two parts of that draft. Right? One was around

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: of where I

[Josh Bloomberg (Educational Technology Program Manager, Vermont Agency of Education)]: think it's gonna create harm without protection producing the protections it aimed us for. So in terms of the registration process that's proposed in

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: the bill talking about Senator Wong inshift amendment, we have not seen that. It's been in the office.

[Josh Bloomberg (Educational Technology Program Manager, Vermont Agency of Education)]: Oh, okay. I apologize. So I think this will I believe that the registry stuff has not been changed in what they were amending and we got it sent to us. I saw it first half an hour ago. So I think that part has not changed. So I think my testimony is spot on on this. So I think that registration is a bureaucracy without a purpose. So Vermont already has an infrastructure that H650 is reaching for. So in 2018, that Vermont Student Data Privacy Alliance was set up. It really is designed to address data privacy. Its charge is not larger. Right? It's charges on data privacy. And it's a mechanism for managing those digital privacy agreements between vendors and districts. So the Agency of Education funds membership for every district, no cost to the district. And as of today, 51 Supervisory Union School District and CTE Centers participate, which is effectively every district in Vermont. And the Alliance database holds about 2,680 active digital privacy agreements between Vermont districts and the vendors. Any district can see the agreements in every other district that they've signed. And if you look at a school like a district like Harwood, Harwood nicely lists about data privacy on their website, and you can actually see a list of all their privacy agreements and which educational technology vendors they have made form those agreements with. The system works because it was designed by experts working in schools and the agency of education as well as national experts on in student data privacy. Vermont's leverage with vendors comes from a multistate coalition behind the national data privacy agreement. So lawyers from the education collaborative negotiate on behalf of districts in 11 states, including Vermont, and they regularly walk away from vendors who refuse to meet our terms. No state only registry can replicate that leverage, especially one that doesn't have any teeth. H650's registry by contrast was designed without input from schools or the agency of education. It's a parallel infrastructure that does not require schools to use it, carries no penalty for noncompliance. Legislative Council described it on Friday as an honor system. H650 has no auditing function to confirm who has or has not registered, and it provides no information for schools when they conduct their own vetting processes of these technologies. H six fifty's registration requirements create a burden without a benefit. The joint testimony submitted on April 30 by the Agency of Education, the Vermont Superintendent's Association, the Vermont Principals Association, and the Vermont School Boards Association proposes a path that strengthens what already works, a requirement for universal participation in the alliance and statewide implementation support for districts without building a parallel registry. Draft 3.2, so this is the only one moved away from that proposal. I'd urge this committee to look at it again. In the joint testimony, we recommend that the AOE in concert with the VSA, Vermont Curriculum Leaders Association, Vermont Council of Special Educators, and the Vermont NEA develop guidance on how districts implement and evaluate educational technology products. That's really important so that there's consistent standards. Because we have districts that are doing amazing jobs. So establishing consistent standards across and guidance on those standards is really important. I'd welcome greater stakeholder involvement in alignment with the latest draft. What I think is important to note is there's a difference between safe and effective. So there's a website edtechindex.org, which aggregates industry certifications as well as ESSA tiers of effectiveness for educational technology that can help evaluate a technology product for student data privacy, security, and safety. And Senator Keisha Ram Hinsdale rightly pointed out that these are industry certificates, and they're paid for by the vendors. So it limits the value of this data, but it doesn't discount it as still being useful. But it can't tell you whether or not that technology product will be effective in a particular school district. That needs to be decided by that school district in their context. So there's a process where you can do some central evaluation of safety. But in terms of educational effectiveness, we need to know the situation within that district. It's not, something that as a statewide will be very successful at vetting. We also built structures into this testimony to gather data on the educational technology products utilized in schools. It's valuable work, and both the current version of H six fifty and our recommendations and testimony support this. We already go beyond the suggestions in the bill. We need to go further with guidance on school district vetting processes.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. So, Josh, I'm short short on time. Is Yep.

[Josh Bloomberg (Educational Technology Program Manager, Vermont Agency of Education)]: I'll stop

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: there. On your testimony that you don't think that this bill is necessary because there are already safeguards in place or that the amendment is not necessary?

[Josh Bloomberg (Educational Technology Program Manager, Vermont Agency of Education)]: I think the amendment is actually very helpful. There's some good things in there, and there's some good concepts in H650, but its mechanisms aren't the most effective mechanisms they could be. And so because they're not structured right and structured with the schools, there are more effective mechanisms that can be put in place. And that's what was recommended in that testimony.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. That is helpful. Committee, any questions? Not, I'm gonna move on to Sue, the draftee. Madam Chair, I would ask if Libby Bone's still and Michael Berry could go ahead of me. Yes. Yes, she is. This is really your Have I got an old one? Hi, everyone. Same thing with this session.

[Libby Bonesteel (Superintendent, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: Randy Brock, I'm the superintendent for Mount Roxbury. My colleague, Hi, Mike.

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: I'm Mike Berry. I'm the director of curriculum technology at Mount Pleasant Rocksbury.

[Libby Bonesteel (Superintendent, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: And I would encourage you, this gentleman is an expert in educational technology and curriculum usage in school and what it should be and what it couldn't be, so I would urge the committee to ask him any questions that you may have about it. I will be glad they give the floor to Mike in that area. I want to say that the as this committee knows, it is a rare occurrence for the agency of education, the VPA, VSA, VSBA, and the NEA to be on the same terms pretty unanimously around the directions this should take. And because we're talking about something that has to do with education, I would commend the group to look towards the people who work with education the most to find direction here. One of the pieces that I'm worried about from the amendment in the working group is that there are two educators on that group. Probably proposed by the VSA and one put it with PA I believe. That's we were working with educational technology and what would impact daily on a basis in a classroom. And two educators out of a committee of about 15, I think not a case would be a small ratio. So that's part of the challenge with the amendments. The other challenge that I find is that there's still wording around banning chat bots. And if you looked at the original bill, the definition of a chat bot is essentially banning the internet. And that it would be a pretty big stake for the legislature to take for our schools and our children. So I would look at that section very closely. Mike, do want to add?

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: I would agree with what Josh presented, the mechanics within the bill are the rough point here. The outcomes that we're seeking, better security for students, we're all on board for that. Better use of technology so that it's high impact, we're all on board for that. But the mechanisms that are built into it are somewhat impactful and really won't lead to the outcomes that you're looking for.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. And I think we can ask the education committee to bring us a draft. Apparently there is a draft amendment, but it's around the chat box there. It's around the working committee, I believe. And the working committee. Okay. You're saying that this the mechanisms they set up won't work. And I think we heard from Mr. Gulick that there are a lot of mechanisms in place that perhaps are doing the same thing. I'm still what problem are we trying to solve? Yes. That's a good question. So one of the problems with the dates that are in the bill brought to you is that they'd be registered by December. Right? So essentially, what that means is that this gentleman in my district, who's my director of instruction and technology, would be spending his entire time working to get whatever ed tech products we're doing to the registry's people, right, to make sure that they have a list of that. And he works with our multitudes support. He works with our curriculum. He works with all our teachers on a daily basis. So what work would you like him to be doing? Would you like him to be collecting ed tech in a matter of transformation, or would you like him to be doing work with the monthly students' support? So there's there's what work would you like our educators to be doing at this point in time that's that important. So the dates in the bill are a little troublesome. The other piece is what exactly is the problem that we're trying to solve. So we do have Vermont data. You're gonna know the exact acronym.

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: The student data privacy We

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: have that. About one third of our schools don't use that. We do. We have very good experience with that. We mandate everybody using that for the time being because it's already place and it protects students' data if that's the problem we're trying to solve. I think if we're talking about educational technology and its use in our schools, we need a lot more time and discussion on that topic that we shouldn't be rushing through at the end of the session with all other educational ideas on the people's bill. You. Thank you, madam chair. I think you just answered the question I was going to ask earlier which is if we don't do anything and don't pass any version of this bill, then you have a mechanism already set up that you use for reviewing the use of technology and registering technology for data privacy and deciding whether that technology is what you should be using in your classrooms. Is that is that something so yeah.

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: Yeah. Yeah. So we have a student data privacy consortium, which Yeah. Specifically targets student data privacy. And that's a pretty airtight system that really establishes gate one, are we gonna use this product? And as Josh said, most of our schools are using that, but not all. Mhmm. And if you think about this bill's impact on small rural schools

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: Yeah.

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: So we're lucky that we have the positions that we do, and we have staff that we do. Other schools are struggling with staffing, administrative support. So how does this look? We have a tool that's really great. I do believe that we need more work on what are the tools we're using and what are their impact. That's one of those components of the bill that we agreed with. The worry is that the wording of the bill points towards two very specific outcomes, a registry and a moratorium.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: It doesn't allow for the working group to explore other sustainable options Yeah. Within the education firm.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. I mean, we are about to potentially pass a bill that gives you guys a ton of work to do over the next few years, and I don't want to give you meaningless work to do that's kind of busy work for no purpose. And so I I would say that, I'm sure. This doesn't feel like it's a bill that's Ready for prime time. Ready for prime time, and we could turn it into a report or we could turn it into something else, but it just seems like it's really late in the session, and I don't want to pass something that is going to create work that's not necessary or create the wrong kind of work. If there's work that's necessary, let's take the time to figure out what that necessary work is in a meaningful and thoughtful way with the appropriate people at the table. It is, I think, really telling that this entire group of people of organizations are concerned as someone pointed out. It's not usual that they're all on the same page. So, that should be noted. The hospitals should target the schools that are not using stratifieds. Yeah, mean that's possible, but I think your point about many of those schools are probably schools that just don't have the staffing. They have the right person. They not everybody has a really highly skilled tech director that is able to so getting making sure that we're not asking schools to do something that at this point they're not able to do. Maybe in a few years they would be able to do after they do other work.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Similar lines to Senator Hardy. I would just ask when they entered, so I will refer to them. You all chime instead of Ed? Did they hear these concerns and still pass it out unanimously? Okay. They didn't pass it

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: out unanimously. Okay. And we did share this with them on April 30.

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: And

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: it has clear sorry. For the record, the Massive Independence Association. It has clear recommendation in the line of what we're talking about in the memo of, like, recommended language from all of us.

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: From all principals associations and Jay Nichols, Chelsea Myers, Same to Beck. Yeah. Michael, you said that our schools follow protocols earlier. Are you talking about schools in Montpelier or Montpelier Roxbury District or Vermont or Schools that are a member of

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: the Student Data Privacy Consortium. Okay. That is the the first gate for those schools. So when a product comes into their environment, if there's no data privacy agreement, if the company refuses to sign

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: How many Vermont public schools are part of this? I don't know.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I think Josh is Two thirds of the schools are private.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Two thirds. Maybe Josh is.

[Josh Bloomberg (Educational Technology Program Manager, Vermont Agency of Education)]: 51 school districts have signed recent privacy agreements that are in our database. So I just went back to the last three years and pulled, like, which districts, and we were up to 51, which gets pretty close to all of them. I think that's more than two thirds. It's about 40 school districts are paying a nonprofit tech, the Education Cooperative, who has a team of lawyers. It's a dollar per student. I believe Montpelier Roxbury does that, and that's super helpful. So in our suggestion of testimony was funding that for all the districts because that's a tool to help those rural districts that are understaffed be able to manage those privacy agreements and the legal processes.

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Is AOE providing outreach to the districts that are

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: not part of the consortium?

[Josh Bloomberg (Educational Technology Program Manager, Vermont Agency of Education)]: Yes.

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: Okay. Alright. Thank you. So,

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: so far, I'm hearing it's not really necessary in most schools, but there is a privacy system that it'll take up a lot of time to do this. We can have better things to do with your time, and I think we're about to give you more things to do if you're gonna.

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: Say we hold on to it. If somebody goes

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: to Yeah. I'm gonna finish up the testimony, but I'm not seeing that I have the bill of the votes to send it out at this point. But I'm gonna hear we have one, we have one advocate, and we have one to be meeting somewhat regularly. I'm gonna try for around 01:00 every day, one to 01:30, and we might be able to get something done. It's it's helpful. I hope you know that we'll see where it goes. And working out, you think we should No. Thank you for the opportunity. And if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to Mike because he's the person you. Now we're in the line. Okay. Sue, now you Roger. Thank you very much. I'm Sue Seglowski, Executive Director for the Vermont School Boards Association. And I will be relatively brief.

[Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: The mechanisms in H650 as passed by Senate Education, as you've heard, would create operational and financial challenges for schools, and that concern remains with the possible amendment. We have submitted a joint memo. It's posted on your page under today's date, And it includes an alternative approach that reflects the policy intent of the bill and the on ground realities in the school. And that's the approach that we support. Thank you.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. So there is a National Data Privacy Agreement that the majority of our schools belong to. Did

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: y'all support it when it came out of the house? Did the senate do things to us that were more concerning?

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: He did not support. That's I never went to house. Take that. Okay. I was just in the commerce. Just the commerce. Started as consumer protection. Almost

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: too late.

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: See? Yeah. I guess it's in your hand.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: But that's not new, isn't it? The right hand?

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: Yeah. When I met you,

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: I may have lost him in there.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Alright. You can tell me about it.

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: So for us, it's real simple too. We diddle from what everybody else said. We're especially worried about rural schools where principals already have a lot of responsibilities. They may not have a tech person that really has easy access to them, especially if you're a supervisory union that's serving a bunch of different districts at the same time, which are the schools that are most likely not to belong to the consortium already. We do support you out here if you can do anything, but have everybody belong to the National Defense Privacy Consortium. And really, I don't have anything else to add other than it's kind of a rush policy at the end. I don't think that's a good policy anyway. I'd rather see this get embedded through a thorough process maybe it's taken up next year in a real thorough, systemic, comprehensive manner. That's all I have for you. Of those rural schools that don't have tech directors, perhaps the ones where the kids might be more at risk because I don't necessarily think so. No, I'm not an expert on this. Mike Perry would be better to answer this. I have no problem. I mean, the question's out of attendance, technology related. But teachers are aware of what they're showing in their classrooms. And principals are aware, curriculum coordinators are aware of what's being used in the classroom. And they're the experts and they're the professionals. I think those are the people that we should charge to being overseeing this. I just think it's if you ever had to go to a system where the pack of directors had to go, like, collate all this information, all that busy work, and if I'm a pack director in the supervisor union, I'm gonna be doing that for five or six or seven

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: think in the North Country. I've been doing

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: that for 11 different school districts. And it just doesn't it seems like an awful waste of time without much.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: This question might be for Mike Barry, if I'm not mistaken. But could you describe what you're currently using for web filters, content filters in schools today? And what's the the ball? Can most PCs on the school network go to any site out there? Do you basically lock it out, permit certain things, or do have to explicitly go out and exclude sites? Is it a catchall? Like, where you narrowly define what can be gone to, or do you narrowly define what can't be going to?

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: I I think there's two explanations. One, there are there are all these things from little extensions that you add to your web browser all the way to the software products that we're talking about. So, you know, we put a a read and write extension on a a student's device so that text can be read to them. That's a piece of software, and it's a really small piece of software. And then there's something like Panorama Education that's a big piece of software. So all of that goes through our systems. We filter with our firewall what students can get to and what they can't. We also have tools that teachers can use within a class period to filter what they can get to and what they can't. K through 12. K through

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: 12. Yeah.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Are you concerned that kids are going to chatbot sites since on school machines, on school devices during the day and and without you sort of vetting those those those tools or the teachers aren't saying what tools the kids are going to?

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: The challenge right now is twofold. One is that students have personal devices and there are ways to get around just about every system. But two, there's a joke in the EdTech community about maybe tomorrow I'll start a startup. There's so many products just popping up and this one's free and if you sign up for this one, you get this one as well. And so we're just playing whack a mole right now, and we are doing the hard work of doing that, adding on top of it a registry component where we're trying to make sure that the little extension that I get for the student that needs assistance with reading has registered with the state of Vermont. That's the challenge point.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: And none of this would affect devices that are directly connected to cellular networks, right? Have control of it on the WiFi at your school. Correct. You're not gonna touch personally owned devices in many ways.

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: No, this puts an extra burden on caregivers to be the ones educating their students on safety and intact. Yep. You know?

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Just illustration for how kids could do things. You were in a motel in Massachusetts' funeral this weekend, and in order to get onto the Wi Fi, you had to sign up for their points thing. And it said I had already signed up, but I never had a password. I couldn't get on. But my grandson down the hall is according to his father, it took him one minute to hack around. And they got to watch TV or, yeah, they had the internet, but literally.

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: I think that's a good point. It goes a lot to what Mike is saying. Things are changing so rapidly. And what Mike has testified and talked about, well, not efficient, did great job, by the way, was we need to change help our students become careful consumers of digital literacy. That's part of the school's job is to do. And I think that anything that stops us in the middle of the it's probably not a good step at this time.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Also, supposed to doing some of those mental health chat box. We've been very concerned about mental health advice being given to kids by machines. And we're pretty sure that kids will go there. I'll be quick because I know we're running out of time, but I wanted to piggyback on senator Chittenden's question regarding personal devices and, you know, being able to access the Internet that way. We do have a phone ban now. Correct? So is that are we is that bearing in the group in terms

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: of Well,

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: you could

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: probably it's been ten years since I was in school. Right.

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: Yeah. Yeah. We're having pretty good success with the phone ban, and students are embracing that. And there's still a lot of ways around it. There's smart glasses, there's smart watches, there's wireless earbuds, there's all sorts of things that are just popping up, and we can't cover the pool forever. We really need to teach them to swim.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Good? Thank you. Okay, Jeff Pannen. I think we're gonna have to take good pictures. Congratulations, Yeah.

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Afternoon. Jeff Fanning, executive director for Vermont EA. I'll echo what everybody has said before. There's not much to add. We just came away from a conference for the weekend where we had Microsoft to the founder and vice president of something or other from AI edu. Pretty young, but didn't really give me hope for the future. They're way smart. And national expert on all the policies coming from congress. The number of things that are coming on this issue are flooding forward. What we are very good at as adults in this arena is setting up policies without any resources for implementation. And I've not heard anybody talk about that. And so I I know that Jay's mentioned or you asked him, and and Mike's responded about the phone tech. Kids are getting around it already. You know, the the devices now as I understand it from my members is, oh, they use the it's a good policy. They use now the school issued device, the PC, to get around it, and they can figure out how to test with each other on that. So we're constantly whacking, you know, this and it pops up here, and it pops up over there. So implementation for me is what I learned at this conference is going to be key going forward. There's a lot of federal things coming down the pike. I don't know which ones passed, but there's a lot of laws that congress is debating and discussing right now. Who knows where they will go? But we we support our supports our colleagues over, and superintendents, school boards, and principals, and the AOE on sort of adjusting the bill as it is. But it's got a bit without it is is concerning, and we are continually going to be playing black and white here. Think Mike's nodding his head. Don't know he put words in his mouth, but that's not here for my members. And we need to teach kids how to use technology in a safe and responsible manner at the right age and the right measures. Happy to answer any questions, but You

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: said a lot's coming out coming toward us. Did you mean a lot in terms of new technologies and devices, or did you mean in terms of, like, you know, federal guidelines or laws or policies or both? Yes. Okay. All of it.

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Right. I mean, there's just I mean, it's changing ever increasing speed, and policies are trying to catch up with it, and states are trying to catch up with it, and some states are approaching this way or that way, and the feds are trying a different approach or the similar approach. And there are a lot of federal bills being kicked around right now. I think about twenty years before we got a list of all these federal bills or here on contract right now. I don't know which ones to pass. Yeah.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Maybe they can pass something. That's a great answer.

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Well, I mean, you know, think this is great concern over technology and young people. The same except for adults too. I know Brookings we have also a person from Brookings there, and and she's got a nice article on chatbots right now. None of that have yet read just under the day. And is also presenting AI, think it is next week. So there's a lot, really, a lot of policy going on. And, again, I'll revert back to resources. School team resources. Otherwise, just wanna figure out a way around it, and we're gonna be always playing catch up Yeah. As adults as you found out in the grass.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I'm sure he can hack that. Yeah. And he's not the techie of the group, so Yeah. Okay. Gotcha. Alright. Any questions? Alright. It's red light of day. We're gonna have probably the bravest man in the room.

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Oh, you're first.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Thank you. And thank you. These are just we're at the end of the session. I completely understand. Trying to get everybody in. It's

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: getting difficult. Well, I appreciate you being long been My here in my name is Patrick Lawrence from Middlebury. I'm a fifth grader in elementary school there. I'm also representing 400 from 100 from different accounts of You know, I think it's interesting to think about resources. So we heard that these that this bill would tax these schools that are already doing this a bunch. I would like to comment, first of all, that we spend approximately $60,000,000 a year on EdTech. It'd be stuff that are conservative as student. So that's I I realize it's not necessary you know, the education budget is much larger, the amount that's spent on Ed, but that's not an insignificant chunk. Money is there, but in nowhere else do we we spend so much and have no evidence of the efficacy of these products. So, you know, if we're looking at broad scale trends, and I wish I had time to pass such liquidity, but there are NAICS scores from Vermont from 2014 to present present actually, before 2014. During the ever since we had widespread digital use, there's been a decline, a substantial decline in our test scores.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: And if you send that

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: to me. I have to write

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: off the paper.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Oh, okay.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah. Some of us just keep old enough to use paper.

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: You can't find them paper too.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I'm not just getting the right person.

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: At a macro level, we see this in Vermont's NAEP test scores. We also, I looked for my own individual district, and since 2015, test scores have gone down by two grade grade levels, three and one grade level in math. So we have seen declines, and those declines are also seen across different states and on international tests as well. So it's not like our, at the macro level, at my daughter's own individual school, looked into one of products that they use on a daily basis for literacy, and it's kind of just per the company's own research, there's actually no supporting evidence for this product being effective. So, you know, that is really not a little bit alarming spending all this money and not actually getting to the syllabus. You know, not to mention the fact that these products are highly gamified. And what does that teach our kids? That, you know, if you have a screen and things are exciting and fun, but if you have to put in the hard work, then it's not fun, then

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: things are on its piece

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: of paper. So I think that's the efficacy piece. On top of that, even though many of these companies are party to well, actually, of them are party to the student data privacy consortium, I would like to note that the student data privacy consortium is actually partnered with is supported by many industry partners. So that's number one. Second of all, there's no enforcement of this data privacy agreement. So two of the companies listed on there, ISO and PowerSchool, which Michael Barry referenced the other day on his talk. Well, PowerSchool specifically had a big breach several years ago. So that's security fix, but privacy also, is not enforced. So 78%, according to the Internet Safety Labs, of ed tech providers, ed tech companies, leave data or share data with third parties. That's enormous. I think that should be highly concerning. My daughter will be heading to middle school next year, where she'll be using presumably much more head tech, and I'm really worried that her data is going to be compromised. That's that's a big concern. You know, these all these people who have signed in and supported this bill have told us numerous stories of not only distraction, gamification, but also more sinister things like viewing pornography, but then also being contacted by potential creditors from out of state, potentially feeding into online gambling, etcetera. So there are so many issues that we're seeing on the ground despite the efforts of administrators and the well intentioned efforts of administrators, teachers, principals, etcetera, who actually control these things. It is. And that therefore, we need to take a step back and say, we're not saying no technology. Not at all. We're just asking for number one to know what's actually used, which, you know, it seemed like in a composing system, we should that should information shouldn't require heavy lift to know what to use. And that lift is incumbent upon companies supplying products. It's not incumbent on the school districts. So know what's used. And second of all, set up a process whereby those products can actually be vetted for safety, for efficacy, and for privacy. So that's really the summary of what I and many of the people who supported this bill think. And I think there's Education is not an easy thing. If I may make a short analogy, it's like when you're eating breakfast, you may have something like Fruit Loops that has enriched niacin that has 50 different vitamins, etcetera, and it has all that quantified. It says, you might think, oh, well, maybe I should be giving to my kids instead of this oatmeal on a piece of fruit. Well, we all know that the oatmeal and piece of fruit is whole, it's healthy, and it might be not quite as exciting, not as attractive, but it's actually the right choice. And so I think we need to be giving our kids that right choice, even though it might not be as entertainment value, it might make it a little, we won't be able to track things quite as well, but we need to re center this teacher student relationship to make that at the center of our educational efforts. I would conclude by saying, I know you all are very concerned and want to create the best outcomes for our students, but if this bill doesn't support, essentially what it says to people like myself is that this is too complicated. Even though we know that there's all these privacy violations, we know that there's not no evidence of efficacy, it's just too much for us to take on right now. To me, quite frankly, I am considering sending my daughter to private school on account primarily because of this. I don't want her ex I if I have a choice between oatmeal and fruit juice, I'm gonna give her the oatmeal and piece of fruit. It just seems a fairly simple choice, and I think that's what the other supporters have built. I think he's going. So I appreciate you taking taking the talk. Thank you. Yeah.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Senator Hardy. Well, thank you. I appreciate your testimony and hearing from you many times over the last few months. No. That's okay.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I I appreciate your persistence. And I I also share many of the goals that you've just laid out Yeah. And, you know, prefer the oatmeal and fruit to the sure. And you can ask my kids. But I'm not sure that what you want this bill would do. And so that's I I think what you're hearing our hesitancy from the committee is that it's really late in the session. This bill has a number of really key partners in education that are concerned about how it would be implemented, didn't go through the education committee in the house, and we are about to potentially pass a major education bill that will give a lot of work to school districts. So it feels like we need to step back and say, how do we actually accomplish the goals? Because I don't think if we pass the bill, you would see and that would not make any difference in this chart.

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: I would take okay. It would take some time.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I would I think we need to really think about what are

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: the goals, who are the

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: right people at the table, what what is actually an effective way to deal with educational technology and to get to the oatmeal that the good oatmeal that we want. I'm not really sure that h six fifty in this form that it is right now especially is that.

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: I'm glad the analogy stuck with you. Yeah. But if I may comment real quickly, know, the senate education community spent quite a bit of time on this, and they heard a lot of testimony from experts in support of this bill. You have a in this, you know, short one hour window, only her her testimony approving the bill. I would suggest that at the very least, there'd be an object. I know we're at the end of the session. Maybe some opportunity to give more testimony or at least just strictly look at the financial implications given the business incentive finance committee. You know, we'd spend a lot on education technology. That is the main idea here. And maybe go back and look at what it's presented in favor of the community. I think saying that we have it covered is just simply not true. And to presume that just because this tech exists, we have to use it. We all were educated. Presume most of us were educated at the time and did not have this technology or most didn't have very limited technology. And it all kind of we figured it out to varying degrees. Right? The heads of tech companies. They were actually in in a time without much of this technology, and they figured it out. And they sent their kids to Waldorf school where there's no technology. Right?

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: So I

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: think there's, you know, this is a really important issue. And I think that right now, it's essentially feels like we're we're doing nothing. Right? And I think I understand concerns about the bill and that it would be a lot, but really the vetting process, if we're not doing it, that means that we're not evaluating these technologies for privacy, for security, and that just doesn't seem sufficient. And I would just, know, note that it wouldn't wouldn't be implemented right away, that it would just set up a a committee to essentially propose those vetting standards, which I think, you know, is a good first step.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: It might be better to do that at perhaps a state level. I think right now, very hesitant to ask schools to do more because we're about to ask them to do a lot for a and to find another way to do the bedding. Because I don't think it's the bedding. It's burden it will put on this at this point in time.

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: May I ask what burden that would be?

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Time is money. And if you take the schools that have technology, they have to spend their time doing this. This is time they're not spending with the kids, teaching them how to use technology when they go home and get on anything they want. And I think and we have schools that don't have to college and directors, so I don't know who do what. But I I think, yes, we probably do need to do something. I'm just very reluctant to send out a bill, and this is how I was saying. It's, like, the first time a bill arrived here that it wasn't our jurisdiction, but that all of the involved organizations that I have no reason to distrust are not working in the best interest of the kids, oppose them. I mean, we weren't joking. I can't remember when everybody in this room was on the same place. I think that it's dangerous to send out legislation that is always gonna be, you know, one or two naysayers, but that the majority of the people that are going to be affected don't disappear. And those are the same I mean, if it were the tech companies in here, we'd say, fine. Same piece. Go home. It's not the tech. And I think that's concerning. And I don't know. No. Okay. We're not going to go south right now. And so I think that's it. Not that we don't share the concern. I think that there should be a clearinghouse. I think we also recommend that sometimes when it's the lure of the forbidden fruit, that the more we ban technology, the more attractive it's gonna be to kids. And they do seem to be able to access it. So we will see. We were out of time. Just

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: to comment, if you followed me afterwards, the Ed group has put forward alternative language.

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: I don't know what I have not. So that is great. Well, you very much.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you for persistence. That will pay off. Certainly. Okay. You've heard all the three of us go to wherever else you're supposed to be.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: More agenda for us. Are you canceling?

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: Judiciary.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: This Oh,

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: absolutely. Yeah. Thank you so much.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: At two, I am surprised

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: Things are the same. Probably, but never can. Yeah. Let's leave home. Banking

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: insurance and securities. Okay. They sent back, So we will try and be here. Yeah. We can we just did we did you guys do a walk through at all? It just okay. Oh, wait. No. Yes. Well, no. We have to stay like we did a straw poll yesterday. Okay. It was but I thought I was told

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: we did No. Didn't get Okay.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Could. We did.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: You want the way to We did. Do

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: This yes. Yeah. So yeah. It was the kiosks and then the the the the lender things that I remember what they're called, but I will find out for the floor, I'm happy to

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: Eighty five.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. It's they're gonna be

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: What you're

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: talking about? The house actually put it in. Yes. Banking insurance, wrote it. Say they have had some serious complaints. That's what I heard too.

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: And then

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Oh, the the lender. The the debt lender. They take they don't pledge your money. No. They take These are your a percentage of your profits. They and when you're starting out, you're naive, this sounds good until five years down the road, you're making a whole lot more profits. So I got the from them. Got Rural? Yep. Okay. We owe them.

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: We got

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: straw poll on the

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: The straw poll on June.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: The amendment that came back from Yeah. Yeah. House. June, banking and insurance.

[Mike Berry (Director of Curriculum and Technology, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools)]: June.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: June.

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: Yes. Passed by the house.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yes. Mhmm. And that they we sent it back to them. They sent it back with further proposal. So

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: we sent a proposal and amended the house

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: for new And we they proposed. Yesterday, nodding was that we would concur. Okay. That's good. I reported on the floor. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. And we are going to have to to do appointments if you haven't. I have the I can email check

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: that all back. Do I

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: have an incident? I don't think that

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: I got something.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We've got Jill coming in at 03:30. Check back here at 03:30. You may be it's been suggested that we just ask property valuation to update. They did a study of equine farms in 2013. Staff is still Are looking for me? Are we still going? I'm sorry. We could ask property valuation to just update the 2013 and see if we still can't get hard numbers. It's still gonna, of course, hit maybe not 11,000,000, but 3 or 4,000,000 in the end from this year is There's was something to sneeze at.

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: There are people that Okay.

[Jay Nichols (Executive Director, Vermont Principals’ Association)]: Testified yesterday thought it would be upwards of 1.1. Yeah.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Well, see, that's what not from PVR and tax. That's yeah. That's their envelope doing that, and I think we need something a little JFOs? 10%. Heavier than to do that this time of the year. Mean, that bill came very late, so I think we will get together at some point maybe tomorrow and wrap things up. Are we supposed to come back at 03:30 today?

[Patrick Lawrence (Parent advocate from Middlebury)]: That's no question.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: You have Jill running coming at 03:30.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I am know. And I am supposed to I can just reschedule that. Can you reschedule, Jill, till tomorrow? Mhmm. I may be free or you can go without me. I'm supposed to try to schedule another education. 04:30. It's at 04:30? Yep. Okay. They'll be back here at 03:30. Okay. If you're free. You guys are conferencing now, right? We're conferencing at two. Yeah. That's why I'm trying to leave. Again, I'm gonna leave.