 Thank you. So we're officially discussing ethnic standards, but feel free to veer from that in your role as chair of the State Board. OK, no, and thank you for inviting me. And again, for those that don't know, I'm Krista Hewlin, chair of the State Board of Education. And we really do appreciate when we get called in to come in and talk to you. And we do our best. We actually had a legislative subcommittee yesterday, so I could discuss with other members. We had a special meeting to make sure that we were all on the same page and we could present something. And I do say that in the beginning of this, we haven't discussed this bill in full meeting. It came up in passing at our last full board meeting, but it wasn't something we discussed in depth. So that's why I wanted to make sure we had a special legislative committee meeting so I could discuss more in depth with the members about this in particular. So I just, at the very beginning, talk about that. So while I'm here representing the board, we have not had this discussion, but we have had it in the legislative subcommittee. And we just want to always support the mission of the bill and the importance of making our schools as equitable as possible. We are concerned with legislature controlling curriculum, the change in relationship of statewide standards and local curriculum, the admission of the State Board of Education having a role in the adoption of the standards, the admission of EQS, Education Quality Standards, and the lack of resources at the AOE and local level to support the bill. So those are some of our concerns. The first, we really do want to commend the legislative effort to create equity for all Vermont students. We really share this commitment. At our last meeting, we adopted new strategic vision and created a committee to create smart goals to achieve this vision. The three pillars of our vision is equity, excellence, and efficiency. And we really are committed at equity in all proposal legislation and reviewing past legislation with an equity lens. On our committee, it's going to be had by John Carroll, who's going to be looking at our smart goals. I'm looking at strategic vision. We also are going to have committee members, Mark Perrin, Stacy Weinberger, and Callahan Back, who is our student member of student reps, is on that committee too. So that is one of our important goals that we share. Recommendations that we have, much of this bill discusses implicit bias, and we are equally concerned and advocate for all teachers to receive training. We recommend that legislators fund the training for all teachers. We've long been concerned with this, especially with Act 77. With Act 77, you have teachers now giving career advice to students, and we're very concerned that implicit bias will affect that career advice. So if you're talking to a student and they talk about being interested in the medical field, and because they're female, they're directed towards being a nurse. And if they're male, they're directed more towards being a doctor. And do those implicit biases bleed in to some of the advice that we're giving our students? That has been a concern we've brought up a couple different times and we're very concerned about. And we do agree with the portion of this bill that that should be a piece of training for all teachers. And one thing we are worried about, we did discuss yesterday, is if it becomes part of teacher licensure, there's an uneven rollout. So if the licensure, so for myself, my license, I think I have four more years before I have to renew my license. So that would mean four more years until I'd be required to have that. So that's why we think it should be something a little bit more immediate and more holistic of looking at that implicit bias training. And not just for some of the concerns raised in this bill, but for others. And that's something that we've long shared. We were, you know, looking underneath this legislation, really the state board is usually the authority to adopt standards. So that's why we were a little confused why we weren't included in the bill at all and what our role would be. And so we look towards statute for that role. And so required in 16 VSA 261. And so we really say as a state board is our role to adopt standards and then for the local SUSDs to create the curriculum. And so that is what's in statute and that's what we see as moving forward. As a state board, we've actually been replacing our vital results which were Vermont created with standards and a more national scope because we do have an AOE that cannot support a lot of these state initiatives. So we are very mindful now when adopting standards is there the resources to see the standards through to create them, to update them and also to implement and to give teacher training. So an example of myself I'm a social studies teacher and we just adopted C3. So C3 standards for social studies. So because that's national and scope, I can go to trainings that are outside Vermont and it can connect with educators outside Vermont. And so that's why we've been moving away from the vital results. We actually got rid of them two meetings ago and we've replaced them now all with other standards. So the last standard to complete that more national and scope was looking at financial literacy. And that was one piece of the vital results that was missing. So we adopted some national standards, national and line scope. So there was multiple states using those standards. So that was, so we see that as the need to make sure that we have standards that can be facilitated and maintained. We make a note in here that the AOE positions have lost many positions over the years and they're now over 70% federally funded. So it's very hard to have these state initiatives when it doesn't come with dollars. So we'll speak later to that in this, but if something like this were to pass, it would need to have a budget given to that. Just in the budget that is right now, there is no room. So it would need to be funded. We feel a curriculum of ethnic studies could be included under existing standards and would align with EQS, which addresses curriculum content. Again, we see it local boards incorporating ethnic studies under global citizenship in the EQS. That includes concept of civics, economics, geography, world language, cultural studies and history. We can also see it fitting under transferable skills and problem solving and communication. One thing we are concerned to is about the timeline. It's a very tight timeline of 18 months. So, and if you see in even our other statement reaction to the governor in all initiatives, we're asking for a five year plan. So plan to roll things out and money and resources to go with that plan. So we would see if there are new initiatives that they should really be mindful of a school timetable, that if you're talking about something in 18 months, that would really give after the creation, it would give three months for a school to incorporate that into the curriculum. And we think that's a very tight turnaround. So be more realistic about the timing with that. We also recommend resolving conflicts between existing state and federal law, which could cause confusion and unneeded duplication. And sometimes in law things are called think different than we already call them and under our ESSA plan. So we just felt it should be consistent with language we're using to make sure we're not confusing others. We advocate the state of Vermont investigates how other states have dealt with this issue. And we really do defer to Dr. Amy Feller who's going to be here next. And some of the work, especially Washington state has done and they've gone through a lot of these standards and really looked for areas where bias could be, could not even just be in the standards but be in the implementation. So there's been a lot of hard work done by this by other states and could we take that and go with it? And that way in this fiscal climate we can do this and just we need to get some of the heavy lifting maybe the firm work that's been done by other states. Also, and our greatest concern again is always the resources to be successful. For any initiative we encourage that I put staffing resources from implementation be provided to the AOE and for local SUs and SDs. So this is something that the AOE would definitely need staff for and at the same time you have to do how is this going to roll out at a local level and what's that cost impact going to be? And so overall we agree with the objective of the bill to ensure equity, we struggle with this proposal as the best way to meet those objectives in the most financially efficient way. Like I said, we've been looking at trying to do our best to look at all policy through equity, excellence and efficiency. And that's where we struggle with is this going to move the needle and can we do it with our fiscal constraints? It would take an investment from the state and we don't wanna see this as an unfunded mandate as something that is just passed with no money attached. So we wanna make sure that there's money attached to it. I do know that you have your Montpelier students coming in and unfortunately I have to get back for daycare so I can't wait that long to hear them. But I did wanna just give you one of our students perspective and I just took this straight from our draft minutes. We have, again, amazing people that work at the AOE to help support us and one of those, Maureen, she put together our minutes and she did a great job putting that together quickly so I could turn around and turn into some testimony. And the bottom one is just our student member, Connor. I just wanted to get a student perspective from his opinion and he expressed his agreement with the goals of the bill and what it's trying to accomplish but shared concerns. This might be another piece of legislation that complicates things. We'd like to know what these changes would look like in a school system. He also asked, not sure how much the board should get into micromanaging what's taught in the schools. He expressed concern over the level of specificity over what's being mandated and he spoke to sort of how his school already addresses this. He goes to Rutland High School and the gym conference and how some of those things are, how some of these addresses are issued. I did talk to my board about, I do have different roles as a board chair than also as a social status teacher. And so I said, maybe I could testify separately and they said that was really, I told them what I would say and they're like, well no, that's really what we advocate as a board. I would say for a teacher and the resources, especially if you're teaching in schools where you're maybe the only teacher and you're teaching in isolation or if I've worked in history departments where there's four of us and now I've worked in a history department where there's 10 of us. It's very different depending on the school and there's no really directory of resources for the state of Vermont when it comes to the subject area. So things that I've used have been from other organizations that have put together packets and so one of them was Asian Studies Outreach Program at UVM, which is now defunded, it doesn't exist. What you used to be able to get as a teacher was a packet mailed to you and it was a whole bin of how to look at ethnic groups from China, that was one of them. And so there's 52 ethnic minorities. So when you call somebody Chinese, they might not appreciate that if they're from China because they might not be ethnically Han so they would get very upset if you call it. So it was going through and looking at these 52 minority groups but it was a package that came to you and it had all the resources you need and the lesson plans. But it was created from a different outside organization. And again, like I said, it's defunded. And so there are things like that that were so helpful and the resources for teachers but one of the things is we don't have a resource directory. One thing I shared with my board that they all agreed would be great is if we had a source within the state of going through which museums can you go to? Which activities can you do? Are there model lesson plans? Are there organizations that could reach out and help and be a part of your classroom? So we're trying to brainstorm other ways that we could meet the goals but maybe in a more financially efficient way. And so that was just our prepared testimony but I'm ready for any questions that people have for our clarifications that you need. Questions? Dave? Yes. What resources are most wanting, as it were, for the kinds of things you're talking about? Well, I mean, especially, I'm a high school teacher so I have a lecture teaching one subject but when we're thinking of our elementary school teachers they do so, I mean, I don't even know how they do their job. They're so amazing. They're teaching English and math and writing and they're just doing everything. And so if we add this, how can we make it easy for them? So that's what I'm thinking like, how do you make resources in that curriculum? And what made that easy for me as a teacher is when you have resource books, when you have curriculum that's created by teachers. That was the other thing within this, the going through and looking at these standards, there was no educator's gonna be in the room. And I'm a little concerned with just- No educator's gonna be in the room. When you look at the, when you look at who's creating the stand or reviewing the standards, I think you do need some educators in the room because they're hard to go through. Standards are not easy or fun. And I mean, they're really, they're not, they're difficult. So with C3, that was just adopted. I'm going to a 16 hour training just on C3 and I'm somebody that understands the standards and works with them. But for more clarifications, a 16 hour going through. So I'm not sure how in 10 meetings you can go through common core math, common core English, next generation science, C3, the financial literacy. So that's what I'm saying. Can we harness some of those deep dives that have been done in other states and use some of that information to inform more policy moving forward? But do we need to go through that process again? Especially if we're looking at standards that have been adopted in other states and that have been getting the deep dive. I'm just money taught. Where I come from there's an old expression, money talks and BS walks. Yeah. We hear a lot. I want to know how much this is going to, I don't mean to be offensive. I just want to know how much this is going to cost and what you would need in order to do it. If that means you need six more people, 10 more people, whatever it might be. I think we have to put a price tag on this and then say it's worth it. I would ask you to do that if you can. And I think Dr. Fowler's going to talk to that about the agency, what their needs would be. And I would say you should really reach out to different SUs and SDs and see what the cost would be at the local level. Because there's a state cost at the AOE, but then there's also the local cost. And depending on different SUs and SDs, they might be in different parts of the process. And there are some schools and organizations that have been working hard with looking at implicit bias and some that maybe they've been working more on proficiencies or maybe they've been working on Act 46. So I think around the state, we're going to see different readiness levels and different needs for monies and costs. And I think that would be a great question for them. I didn't mean to offend you on this. No, no, no. We agree on the state board. We want to make sure that if aiming is passed, it's agonically funded. And that's what we're saying with five year plan with five years cost associated with it to make sure whatever comes through comes through with fidelity and can be paid for. Representative Miller and then Coopley. I'm a little frustrated. Good ideas can come from anywhere. I'm concerned that nothing is going to happen with good ideas or a good idea. I don't know. How do we work with the Department of Education or the Agency of Education to feed you good interesting new ideas that come our way? How do we move on them if we think they're very important? And I think goes back to your question. It needs to come with some money. I mean, I'm just being honest. So if we're going to... We did. We'd make recommendations to give you all the staff you want. Oh, no, no, no. Well, no, I'm not even saying the same word. I don't mean that. We don't have our own dedicated staff. We're here for the agency. For the agency. We're trying to, we know that. Yeah, we deferred always because we don't have our own staff, even by statute we're supposed to. But we always defer that we do not want to take resources away from the agency. You don't what? We don't want to take resources away from the agency. But because the agency is doing max amount of work. I mean, Rebecca Hogan, she has taken her agency and is using it so efficiently. And there are people doing jobs that they might have three or four different responsibilities. Other states still have three or four different people doing just that one job. So they are doing heavy work for an agency that is really more of a federally funded agency. It's over 70% federally funded. So if this is going to go through, it needs to have some dollars attached to it. And so with those good ideas, I think we can all agree there are some great ideas. There are things that we would love to do at the state. But are we willing to pay for them as a state? What would cost money here in this bill? So I think my father's going to talk about that, like how much it would cost for the actual agency. But again, it would be that local level cost. And I don't think we can ignore that. And I don't think we can just pass it on to local boards at the same time or saying, cut cost, cut cost, cut cost. And then by the way, figure this one out too. I think we need to talk to them. And I don't have a dollar number. But I agree that there are some great ideas in how can we do that. And I do think through some existing structures. I mean, I would love to engage with other organizations outside the EOE that could help create model curriculum, just like what I talked about with the Asia States Irish Program at EVM, which created resources for teachers. I think that is really helpful. I think it's very helpful to have, as a teacher, if you can have a place to go to say, if I want to learn about these things or what's appropriate for my student at what age and what resources are there and lessons I can use and borrow. That is very helpful for the teaching force. I don't see teachers trying to ignore this subject. I feel like teachers really want to engage a subject, especially in the current climate that we're in. There are a lot of teachers that just need the resources to make that happen. And again, when they're teaching everything under the sign, especially on the entry levels, what can we give them? And I do think we can have some partnerships. I'm not sure if the partnerships need to create standards. That's where I think that that's where maybe goes a step further. That those standards need to be, if they are going to be created by Vermonters, it should be by the government, not by an outside organization. It should be by the secretary calling a group together, which we can also do through the state board. So if the legislature really cares about a topic, you could also let us know and say, we'd like you to investigate this further. And we are, like I said, we have our strategic plan right now being, we're redoing that. We just created our strategic vision, which does put equity as number one. What are you doing for diversity in the public school system? And that's what we're working on our smart, like I said, we just initiated that process and we're gonna be looking at that. And by June, we hope to have smart goals that we're able to vote out. So really actionable steps that we wanna take. And so that's what we're developing right now. Representative Poopwood. Chris said, I'm curious as to the board's reaction to Salomonos remarks. So in what way? To Conor. Yeah. Whether the state board should be micromanaging. Yeah, so by law, we're not allowed to. I mean, that's the thing, like by law, we're not supposed to be micromanaging. By law, we create, we adopt the standards. And at the local level, they're the ones that create the curriculum. So this is why it's a divergence from practice. And that's why we brought up that this is something new and different. The curriculum, we've never had a statewide curriculum. So when we look at standards at C3, I teach social studies. But at South Burlington, social studies curriculum looks different than it does at Burlington High School or LaMoyle or Mount Abe, any of these other schools. So they take what the standards are. And at the school I work at, we teach women's studies. I'm typically the women's studies teacher. I'm doing a less schedule this year in part time. So I didn't get to teach it this year. I could teach again next year. But we have different course offerings based on the standards. We don't tell schools that they have to teach US history in 10th grade. We don't tell them they have to do certain things. So that's why it's a divergence. So the board supported that is because it is a divergence. And if that is a direction this legislature wants us to go in, is that for this area or for all? Do you want a curriculum that is state-based that comes from a higher level than the local level? That's something for you all to decide. But as a statute right now, that's why I think you're getting this statement from the state board. So I have concerns about the notion of this costing a lot. When I learned history of US history as a student eons ago, clearly, I learned about inventors. Eli. Whitney. Whitney. Thank you. We invented the cotton gin, wonderful thing. But I didn't learn about George Washington Carver, who happened to be a black man, right, and discovered the uses for peanuts. When I learned about the Civil War, I learned about Grant and Sherman. But I didn't learn about the black units that fought for their own freedom. So it doesn't cost a lot of money to teach the history that includes the ethnic diversity in our country. And I think that's what the genesis of this bill is, not wanting to necessarily micromanage schools, but wanting to have a fair and broader inclusive history of the United States and of the world for that matter. We teach, we use history books that talk about the valiant use of the Pinkerton's, is that the right phrase, in fighting for the corporations to be able to exist. But we don't learn about the unions that underwent terrible hardships in order to put food on the table for their families. In general, we teach a wealthy white man's history. Now, being a white man, I'm just gonna do that as a history teacher. Okay, so I'm talking about my experience at school many years ago. Hopefully, I realize that if there are now black studies programs, women's studies programs, and so we've come a long way. But I think the genesis of this bill and the genesis of another bill we have that aims to micromanage teaching of civics in schools that you may be aware of as in today with more signatures and more sponsors in the house that needed to pass the bill is about micromanaging civics education. And I think the genesis of both of these bills is individuals feeling like we're not doing a very complete job of teaching history and civics in our schools. So for example, you say here, we feel the curriculum of ethnic studies could be included. Why doesn't it say at least should be if not shall be included? And when you go in that direction, then you generate the requirement for schools to pay attention to more complete teaching of the history of the United States. When you talk about training being needed for teachers, every school system I'm aware of in the state is in-service training. Some of it pretty, if you ask teachers, pretty ridiculous in the expense and the scope of the in-service training. Why isn't part of the in-service training just devoted to ethnic studies? I mean, none of these things that I've suggested would cost a dime more except with the possibility that going forward different textbooks would have to be produced, purchased. I would just add to that and the way I'm saying, I think what would cost money is when you're going through and creating new standards. That's when it comes to the bill, when it goes through that there's gonna be some sort of organization that comes together and they're writing new standards, reviewing new standards. That's the piece that would cost. That's where I think the cost would come in. And when it comes to history, I think we have to be careful of what used to happen and what does happen and what is true for our Vermont students today. And I don't think it's true for Vermont students today that they experienced the same US history that you experienced. And I know that's true to be in my classroom. And we don't even just look at it. I guess we don't pull it out as ethnic studies. It's part of US history. Like for me, US history is the history of us. That's why I always say it's history of us and includes everybody. And so when we're going through, I don't tease out, here's this, here's that. But when we talk about the women's rights movement, we talk about not only you have Betty Friedan and you have from Betty Friedan all the way to the purple menace. So that was the lesbians that were on the end that were pushed out of Betty Friedan and her movement. We talk about civil rights movement. And we talk about civil rights, not just about Martin Luther King, but all the way to the Black Panthers as a spectrum that everybody wanting change, wanted change, but fell somewhere different with on the spectrum. And so that's incorporated into US history at this point. And so it's not pulled out. So if you wanna pull out a course in ethnic studies, then yes, we're thinking you could use the education quality standards underneath the world's citizenship and cultural history or even under the transferable skills where we talk about communication and problem solving. So if you wanted a separate course, but to me as a history teacher, I like integrating that because it shouldn't be separate. It should really be a part of history. And so I guess I take issue with that because I did experience history through Whiteman's view when I went to school. And there's been a huge cultural shift. And we don't even, I mean, I haven't used a textbook and I've been teaching over 10 years. I don't use a textbook for that reason because a lot of the textbooks are so biased. The only time I use a textbook is there's one time I was working with a teacher who used this textbook and I said I would use it too. But I used it as a way of we would go through it and say learn about the 1970s and then we go and critique the textbook and say what did it leave out? Because the textbook only talked about Nixon and talked about the white men, but it left out all these other movements. It left out Latino Americans, it left out Native Americans and movements that was going on. Never mind the women's movements in African American history. So I think I guess I would just make sure we're now trying to legislate past mistakes and making sure that we're looking at the current, what is happening in Vermont schools right now, especially and how we can best improve really quality of education for all of our mentors. But I do think the goal is to integrate studies and not create a separate course. Other places do create separate courses. We have a race and culture class in my school I work at. We have the women's studies. So we look at some of these issues and we had Asian studies until we didn't get enough sign up. So it's how, because one of those things is those are just small classes where people can get more information. But you want that in the broad classes that everybody's taking. Everybody should know about American history. That includes us, everybody and really not just one version of US history. And so I guess, I mean, I'm not interested in cost of textbooks because really most history, people I know aren't using textbooks. If they are, they're using it as a secondary document. It's not the primary sources anymore. We really move to one-to-one initiatives in most of the state where people have resources from using their computer. You can go on and you can look at perspectives. And I guess that's where Common Core really speaks to this because you're supposed to look at multiple perspectives of history and not just look at one history. So if you're looking also at the Civil War, so you're looking at for multiple sides. I mean, just in my class this year, we looked at what does it mean to be, what should we do the Civil War memorials? You know, what do we do with these memorials that we've put around the whole country and what should happen to them? I mean, that was our final project. It wasn't a memorization of what battles were from the Civil War, but it's more looking at the legacy of them. So. So thanks. Stand corrected. I appreciate it. But I just want to make sure we're like, teachers are doing this. And so my question is, do we need standards that go through and what's the cost of creating state-based standards? Because we did that with vital results and we've gotten rid of the vital results. So this is starting and initiating a different process and that's where the staff cost would come in. Not in the actual teaching of history, because I agree with you, that should be part of all history. Other questions? Yeah. Pardon? Back there. Yes, sir. Oh, this is my first time ever to come into the state house. So introduce yourself, sorry record. I'm Anton Calisam, I'm the curriculum coordinator at Mount Mansford Union High School. And so I wasn't sure if I was allowed to be called and I'm going to raise my hand and lonely hold I was. I want to echo a lot of the things that Chris was talking about here. And when we talk about time, one of the things that I do is I work specifically with teachers on curriculum and curriculum development as well as instruction and assessment at Mount Mansford Union High School. And when we talk about cost of things, there's a money cost and there's a time cost and thinking about what we're asking our teachers to do at a local level in terms of implementing things. With the proficiency based type of legislation that we've had over the last few years, we're working really hard right now to implement those things. And one of the big discussions that's happened is how do we improve and make our curriculum richer and more diverse to address those things we're already put forth to us half a decade ago with some of the shifts with the proficiency based educational requirements in the EQS that changed six or seven years ago. And so I also echo the changes that she has mentioned in terms of how the history education and the civics education and the diversity education has changed a lot since you were in school and since I was in school and how the textbooks are not used nearly to everywhere that they were in the past and how we are using a lot different materials that highlights all those perspectives that this bill is seeking to address. And one thing I will say, the goal in this is very laudable. But what I will say as a teacher and as a curriculum record that's dealing with this, these are things that we're working on right now and are already being pushed in this direction based on the things that have already come through this committee years ago. And I think that's the one thing to be careful of on all these is, we're doing it, we're working on it. We're pushing these ideas out there. I not only work with Montmanfield students and teachers, I also work with different Shinton County folks and I go to a lot of different state level things as a curriculum director and curriculum coordinator and these discussions are happening on a local and regional level all the time. So I will say that in some ways this can be seen as redundant because it's happening and I appreciate your comment about how do we get those ideas out that are really fun and exciting. And the one thing about things like this is when top down things come to teachers it actually takes our eye off the fun and exciting ball because then we have to stare at this and think about how do we navigate getting these in there. There's so many fun exciting ideas going on that we're trying to implement, we're trying to do and the more things come down the pipeline from this body and even sometimes from the AOE we take our, we take our eye off the ball of the things we're trying to do right now that makes our curriculum richer. So I just caution on some of those top down things because we're trying really hard and it's a big ship to steer and when we have to go like this all the time as teachers it takes our eye off some of those other balls. So this, we're doing it and it also concerns you when I say the top down type of thing. So I appreciate you coming. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do you have any other questions from the committee? Any other comments? Christa, I have another witness. Okay, no, I know Amy's, yeah, I'll let Amy come in here and just, I guess you mentioned just the civics test going through. We also don't support that. I mean, we're just being honest from the state board. We don't support that bill because it is, we discussed at our last meeting and so the discussion went that it's very much a formative test in our mind, meaning it's what students should know but it's not gonna be what engages them in politics. What engages them in politics is finding their passion and then finding through these rich experiences. You're gonna see it in Montpuller High School when you see Montpuller High School students come in. You're gonna see that when we're here. You had several high schools represented when they found their passion talking about gun issues. When students find their passion, they need to have those resources but memorizing how many senators there are, that's not in our view what's gonna create lifelong citizenship. So we're really interested in seeing that as a formative test, meaning that students take that and that would help them understand how much they know about government but we don't see as a way of creating engaged citizens. We really do think the C3 that was just adopted is a lot richer and allows students more opportunity to really engage in government and I think that's what we want from our students and I guess that's what we've been trying without all of our standards is not things that you memorize but how do you become a lifelong learner? How do you have the skills and resources to move forward because some of those kids didn't know they'd be passionate about gun rights until there was an incident that happened that really sparked that passion. I talk about it with my students they had to write a position piece to come in and do testifying on Bayer's ear which was the president was saying should we take back and shrink the national monument and we did this whole test move and they came in and then when they got all fired up about net neutrality I'm like so what we just did with Bayer's ear that's what you do, you write your claim, your evidence and your reasoning and you write it to your senator they're like well I wanna write that I'm like okay well who's your senator and that's where the questions come in and that's where that more engagement and I guess that's again why we wanna leave that to educators to have the resources they need we're not sure if that test is gonna really do it. So we'll get you back, we'll get a memo from you because like I said there are more sponsors on that bill than needed to pass it on the House floor so it's not just a matter of putting the bill on the floor and seeing if it'll pass or not but it's from my perspective a matter of reforming the bill in a way that is better for everybody so suggestions you have as to how to reform that bill. Formative, not graduation requirement, that was our idea. That it should be a formative that maybe every student should take it but maybe you don't need to graduate I mean that just is changing completely our whole idea of proficiency based graduation and that's maybe a formative of your freshman year you take and what do you need to know but maybe not a graduation at the end. Thank you. Dr. Fowler. Hi everyone, for the record Amy Fowler, Deputy Secretary for the Agency of Education. I did submit testimony and I believe it is posted Marge is that correct that we'll pass around hard copies for those of you that might need it and if you'll help the guests as well. I always like to speak just a little bit. Nice to be with everyone today. So I want to start my testimony today and by being very clear upfront that I have a meeting scheduled to discuss this bill with other sponsors but it's not till Thursday so we have not had an opportunity to consult. I'm sharing with you information that I've also shared with them and we may come back to you on Friday with some other suggestions of how we can move forward. Very much like the Board of Education the Agency supports the idea of really doing something around the issues related to equity. We have no concerns about that but we want to recommend some ways in which we could do this more efficiently and actually get to action sooner rather than later. So that's our strategy to begin with. So the first issue has to do with section two page eight. In that particular section it directs the Secretary of Education to publish results disaggregated by student group. We don't have any objection to that it's already required under federal law but we would ask that the committee move that language instead of being a Secretary of Responsibility that it be given to the Board of Education which currently has an obligation to produce data for the public and just move that into a different section and then again use the same vocabulary used in the federal statute so that when schools go and look the language matches exactly and they understand how those two things work together. And I'd be happy to work with Ledge Council on how to get that in but that's our first recommendation. No concerns about disaggregating the student data it's something that we're already required to do. Let's get it in the right place. So that's our first. The second is that throughout the document it's our belief and again I haven't had the meeting with sponsors yet that it's the intention of the authors to make sure that the state is attending to those groups that have been historically marginalized historically disadvantaged in American society. And we agree we actually wrote an entire component of our SS state plan highlighting up the fact that there is historical advantage and disadvantage in our society. We need to pay attention to that. Having said that what we are concerned about is as you look throughout the document by only bringing forward the voices of those that have been historically disadvantaged and not including those that have been historically advantaged we lose the opportunity to make the important comparisons that are required. It does not help us to know if females have a lack of access if we don't also know what male access is. It does not help us to build an understanding that ethnicity and racial background is not something unique to those who are not white. It is something that we all carry. Whites happen to carry a lot of privilege. And so we do not want to lose the idea that every person in Vermont needs to be included in the conversation but that our goal is to lift up the voices of those who have been historically marginalized. So we would ask the committee to really look throughout the document as to whether or not the document is speaking so that all Vermonters have a role in becoming more equitable citizens or is it really that this is about some groups and not others. So that's just a global conversation. Again, happy to work with the committee around that particular topic. The third on the back. This may seem really small and petty but throughout the bill refers to the creation of the ethnic and social equity standards advisory board and then you shorten it to the board. In education, when we say the board we mean the state board of education and this is going to create untold confusion. So if you choose to create this council please give it a different name than the board so that we don't end up with people saying which board are you talking about? Okay, so Christa already mentioned that the entity that has the power to adopt standards is the board of education. So we would recommend also making that small change that you not in the bill right now it says the secretary is directed to adopt standards. That would actually be the board of education. And then the second thing we would just point out to you is that you already have in statute the ability to request that the state board of education create subcommittees for advisory purposes on issues of policy to advise the board on next steps. Our recommendation to you would be that this would be such a committee. If they're going to advise the board on what to do they should operate under that existing statute rather than as a standalone. Even within that you can still recommend what the membership should be. You can say what you hope that they would accomplish but keeping it within already existing protocols and channels rather than a separate side by side organization would help for coherence. It would also then require the board of education would get updates from that committee as it was meeting as part of their regular meetings and would keep everybody on the same page. Those are kind of minor things have to do with language. These are a few significant alterations that I think you all need to think carefully about. Okay, so one of the privileges of going second is you get to hear the questions that the committee asks. And so it's always such a lucky place to be in. And Chair Sharp, you said earlier you really wanna know like what could we do? I will be very frank with you. This had not been high on my radar only because I have like 15 other things I've been in testifying to you about. But I read the bill and I said this is a really important idea. We really care about equity. What could we do to move the agenda? So the first thing I wanna say is the bill has prompted an action at the agency already. Because if the bill had not been written I likely wouldn't have done what I needed to do to respond to you. So just by writing the bill there's been an action. And the first action that occurred is I went online and I said who else is using the same national standards we have adopted and has anyone already done a standards review? And how did they go about doing it? And I found Washington State as being the most connected. Each time Washington State adopts the standards they convene not fewer than 50 people, educators and community advocates it would be the way I would describe it. Who come together and over the course of a year put together a review of the standards. They did it for Common Core English, Common Core Math. They did it for the NGSS studies. I stopped looking because I only had so much time to keep looking. But I did find that they went through and they reviewed all of these standards. They hired external consultants and I've written to them and gotten their work plan for what they did it. That's what's gonna tell you where the costs come from because I asked them how did they pay for it and what did it cost? Our recommendation is that we do not believe that in Vermont we would identify wholly different gaps or bias incidents compared to other states and locations that have done this same work with the same standards. What we could do is take their work and say how can we use this without redoing it so that people could start using it next year or the year after. The proposal right now is that we would go through the same thing that Washington's done and then once that's done figure out how to get it to teachers. I'm suggesting we could actually provide you a report next at the beginning of next session in December that says for all of our nationally adopted standards, here are the sensitivity and cultural bias reviews that have been done. These meet the standard. We can use them and start working with them or we can't use them or they don't exist and we need to do them. But I wanna come back again for Washington. Each set of standards has required a year, 50 people coming into those meetings and a consultant to facilitate the process for each set of standards. If we choose to undertake this and we're doing all of the standards, again the timeline that Christa was talking about is pretty ambitious. So what we would recommend is an alternative in order to move this forward. And again, I wanna say I wouldn't have started this if the bill hadn't been written, so there's always that place for something to come up is that the agency can dedicate our staff to doing a research of all the available and published surveys that are out, the cultural sensitivity bias surveys that are out, report back to you with a work plan of what it would cost to conduct the rest of the work moving forward. So that's our recommendation for that section. The second thing that we'd like to propose to you is that you have already passed a number of pieces of legislation related to discipline, hazing, harassment and bullying that are in different sections of the bill than where this lands. There's a lot of overlap between them and we would like the opportunity to work both with the sponsors and with Ledge Council to make sure that these are aligning and people don't inadvertently think that they're two separate things. Okay, so when we have the same general practice described in different places of statute and they don't align as you saw with our definition of pre-K eligibility, those create confusions for folks out in the field. We've gotta make sure these are really well integrated and right now they're not. So we'd like to have the opportunity to consult on that. So that's our recommendation is just make sure that we merge these. If you do choose to create this standards advisory board, I left the name as it was. What we estimate is it's gonna take approximately 25% of one person staff time to coordinate all of the meetings and all of the resources that are together. And then we also have the stipends that would be needed to support the people who attend. We can't know for sure how many people will need to be paid because we don't know who they are. So the high end estimate for that is about $15,000 based on what it costs us to convene the Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators and the Vermont State Board. It's about $15,000 a year for their stipends, mileage, and ancillary costs. And then we have found in our experience working on issues like this, having an external facilitator is usually the best way to ensure that the work gets completed and is also completed well. And usually the going rate for that is anywhere from for an annual contract. It could be an estimate from 75 to 150,000. I put it in as 100,000 is a round number. So that's our estimate. If we went ahead with the council, what we think would be necessary to do it well. And then the last part is the bill does reference restorative practices and specific training at this local level to respond to racial incidents. All of these things are really important as the committee is aware. The field often talks about unfunded educational mandates in this. It's specifically saying you must use restorative practices and you must be trained in these two elements. We would need to address how that training occurs. So open for any questions you might have. But again, I do have a meeting on Thursday where I might have better information for you on Friday. So do you think it's part of this meeting on Thursday that at least the outline or the principles would be developed between the agency and the sponsors for moving forward with this bill? Yeah, so I think the question is my impression and I've gotten a little bit of feedback back because I did send a copy of my testimony over to some of the sponsors. I think that there's a real desire on the part of the sponsors to have the council meeting and from what I've gathered, and I don't know why and I'll have to know more, it's very, the initial reaction was they really didn't like the idea of it being a subcommittee of the board was what I read, but it was again through email and I'm always a little nervous about interpretation with that. But there's, as most members of the committee know, I'm new to Vermont and our level of local control is very unique and most other states, we're one of the few states in the nation that doesn't have statewide graduation requirements that's left to the local level. We're one of the few states in the nation that actually has been moving away from courses and more towards proficiency. And so a lot in this bill is based on this idea that you would have a required class or course for graduation that every student in the state would have. It's not to say that's a bad idea, but it comes into conflict with some other ideas in Vermont that we really all have to wrestle with as we think about. So I guess my answer to that would be we'll see. And I really do think that it's, I was on my drive here, I was thinking, this is such a difficult topic to talk about because I support the goal of equity. It's been a primary force in my life and simultaneously I'm concerned about the methodology and whether it's the most effective way to get to a shared goal. And it's very difficult. I don't wanna oppose something that I really believe in just because of the way in which we're trying to get to it. It's uncomfortable, I would say, it's probably the human way to describe it. Representative Miller. How do you deal with current events? How do you deal with extreme changes in our country and the world that occurred today? How does the agency? How does the agency, how does the classroom teacher? How do you help kids understand the importance of the judiciary commit the legislative so forth? How do you, especially at a time when those bodies are under such attack? Like maybe never before. Okay. So that's a question. Yes, yes. It's a question. It's good. Really working at it. Give her a chance to answer. Representative Miller, I really appreciate that. I think, so at the agency level. Climate change, the polar bears dying because the ice is melting too fast. I mean, something like that. How do you deal with that? So I'm gonna start at the agency level. You will, if you have not subscribed to, if you do not check our website very frequently, you may not see the frequency with which Secretary Holton is using the power of her position as the secretary to communicate around these issues of inclusion and social justice. I think it is very important for members of the committee to know that probably our number one complaint and pushback that we receive is from people who oppose our messages related to equity. That is probably the most common thing that I receive is that we have gone too far in promoting an agenda of equity and that we are applying, I'm gonna say, too liberal of a bias to educational settings. So it is an uncommon that I'll get a complaint about a school has chosen a particular book. The agency doesn't choose books, school systems do. It is not uncommon that I'll receive a letter about a policy that a school system has for discipline that they feel is too lax. Again, by statute, you've made that a requirement that school systems adopt their policies of discipline in compliance with state policy. And so I'll be directing them back. So one of the challenging positions is that a big part of what I do is spend time helping people understand the right level of influence for the thing for which they are concerned. And that is a civic duty to help people understand that when you have a concern with what your local school system is doing, you address it to your school board, you don't address it to the agency of education because that is not how civics works. In the same way, if someone calls up Senator Sanders office to complain about a Vermont law, that is not the way our society works. We have Vermont laws and they need to call you all to tell you how happy they are with your work, of course. So that's one part we do. But then the other thing that I think you're asking about is how do we make space in schools for all students to be able to engage in conversations? And I would say that that is very challenging, especially in the light of the fact that when students come, they may not all share the same value and their families certainly don't all share the same value for a particular issue. And teachers are walking a very delicate line between sharing what is now the new science or the new understanding of the world against what people believe from their own home and background and it's a politically challenging place to be. What they work at doesn't always go well. My thinking right now about my poor sister, she had a situation just recently happen where something came up where she was teaching something and she ended up having to go to the school board to defend why she was teaching what she was teaching was very challenging. So it's not an easy answer. I don't think there's a social studies teacher that would sit in this chair that would tell you it's easy to know what they can and can't say, what they can and can't talk about without upsetting some portion of the families that they serve. Having said that, I do think that social studies is the easy place to talk about this. And I think we tend to go to civic engagement and how do we become members of an effective community? All of our subjects have the propensity to have a bias included in them. One of the things I, and I'm coming back to the Washington, I spent a lot of time talking to my colleagues in Washington, but one of the things that I thought was really eye-opening is like we have a standard in early mathematics around teaching students to understand how to calculate interest using percents. Okay, pretty typical standard. What they had identified as the places where that could have bias is the idea that everyone has a credit card. Well, of course, everyone doesn't have a credit card. Does everyone use a bank? No, everyone doesn't have a savings account. Everyone doesn't have a bank. And so this idea of helping a teacher to understand that these things that you might think of as standard economic background may not be an experience for a third grade student. And so how could you talk about interest that doesn't assume that prior knowledge? That's an example of a cultural bias or a sensitivity bias that exists in a math curriculum that is not a history-based item. That work has been done. Again, I wanna tell you why I'm so excited about the Washington work. Not only did they identify this, but then they identified for every grade level. This year, when you're a third grade teacher getting ready to teach math, these are the standards that these are the things we can perceive. You might be in danger of committing a cultural, racial, economic, disability bias if you aren't attending to, and they have those resources. My recommendation is let's take their hard work. They'll send it to me. They're really good sharers. And let's put that out to our teachers to use it. So kind of building on what Krista was saying, there are resources that exist. They just were created by a different state, but they were created by a different state for the exact same purpose that this bill proposes. And so if we can be smart and use it, I'd love to. And then we can get to actually putting it in people's hands and able to use it. So I'll come, as soon as we have our meeting, I'll let you know, but that's where I'd like to propose. And I would like to say, Chairman Sharp, to your point, the question you always ask is, well, we see a problem, we want it to get better, how can we? I actually would say to you, I didn't know these resources existed till the bill was written by writing the bill, you made me go look, I went to go look, I found them, and now we've got a proposal for where to move forward. That's how things changed. And it might not be a bill that gets passed in that way, but I want you to know that that's what happened because it was raised in this way. Thank you. Thank you very much. I look forward to you for a few years on your Thursday meeting. Anybody have any other questions for me? Actually, I'm going to carve out five minutes for Kate Logan to make a couple of comments. Kate, if you'd like to join us, we are kind of over time, so I will ask you to stay within five minutes, please. I'll agree. Just get into the document tonight. I believe I emailed that. Did I just didn't know what he was? Sure. This is, identify yourself please for the record. I'm Kate Logan. I'm the director of programming and policy for rights and democracy out of Burlington, Vermont. We're a grassroots social justice organization. We're a member of the Vermont Coalition of Ethnic and, or I'm sorry, we're a campaign partner with the Vermont Coalition for Ethnic and Social Equity in schools, and we are support, we're supportive of the passage of this bill, particularly the composition of the group that should be advising on the standards for ethnic studies, and for a couple of reasons. The first is that we believe, having spoken with the coalition members who drafted the bill, we believe that the recommendations that they're making, first of all, would provide expertise into the kind of curriculum that we need to develop. I don't believe that we need to avoid having educators serve in those roles. I think we can identify educators of color with the kind of expertise that we need in order to develop an ethnic studies curriculum. I also believe that the bill doesn't state that we need to avoid looking at the research and the good work that's been done in other states on this issue already. I think this is important for two reasons. The first is, and both of those are for the children of Vermont, first, we need to make our schools hospitable to children of color. They are here in our state. They are reporting to us, and their parents are reporting to us that they do not feel visible in the curriculum that are offered to them in their schools. Second, for white children. In the state of Vermont, we have an obligation to cure them of the implicit bias that happens when white children are not exposed to the lived experiences of other people of color. So I'll just focus my comments on the topic of implicit bias and the way that it works, because I know that this is really the core issue that this bill was written to address. We're Vermont's concerned. I am going to focus my comments on taking an intersectional approach to combating racial and ethnic inequity. Racial and ethnic injustice in the United States is far more often an effect of structural racism and inequity that's embodied in unconscious bias and institutional practices rather than individual conscious racial prejudice or ethnic prejudice. In such a state as Vermont, where overall there's a culture of fairness, a love for equality and freedom, and a distaste for racial prejudice and ethnic prejudice, many white folks may feel alarmed and confused by evidence that Vermont is not that much different than any other place in post-lavery and post-civil rights era United States. How can white folks respond to the diverse, identifiable harms that are done to people of color in Vermont when those white folks are not racially prejudiced or at least not consciously so? And why is structural racism and bias so persistent and what can we do about it? Studies of implicit bias, which is also known as implicit social cognition, helps to reveal the involuntary attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding actions and decisions. Implicit bias can be positive. So for example, you might love children and recognize their vulnerability and so smile when you see a child and wanna help them when they're in danger. But implicit bias can also be negative, especially where negative stereotypes influence the response to those who are unlike us. This is especially a threat within relatively homogenous societies where there's not a demographically diverse population or a high level of integration among historically distinct social or cultural groups. The lack of awareness of implicit racial bias and systemic racism in Vermont is part of what it has meant to be a white person in the United States. It's been the burden of non-whites to know that white people see them differently than they see themselves. As early as the 19th century, African-American social commentators were aware of the fact that white people didn't know about black experience. And the fact is that stereotypes move in to fill the void when we don't have concrete knowledge about those who come from historically distinct groups who are unlike us. Humans are creatures who form opinions about things so that we can make decisions about how to act in the world. And so there's no such thing as neutrality when it comes to race or ethnicity in the United States. Either you're aware of what race means historically in the real lives of people of color or you're not. So among scholars of social injustice, the term epistemic injustice has become increasingly common. Epistemic injustice refers to the power and balance that exists amongst different social groups when it comes to knowing. And this is why I think it's important for people of color to comprise the group who will do the research and advise on the curriculum standards regarding ethnic studies. It occurs when implicit bias, so epistemic injustice, occurs when implicit bias structures one social group's ability to hear and believe members of other social groups when they speak about their experience. So essentially, because I only have five minutes, I would talk about testimonial injustice and hermeneutic injustice, but what it all amounts to is that it's an incapacity, especially for white folks, to hear and believe the experiences of people of color because of our lack of exposure to people of color and their concrete lived experiences. So thank you for your time and thank you for considering this bill. Thank you. We're not done with consideration of this bill, so. Of course not. Jeff, Dan, and you're up. We do have a cold customer. Great, thank you. We're going to shift gears, Jeff, to a free kindergarten education and then it's free to expect students from out here at our house. Thanks for those chance. Enjoy your vacations. Thank you. First of all, thank you, sir. Did you want her? Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Good afternoon. Jeff N. for Vermont and EA. Thank you for allowing me a few minutes here to talk about the Pre-K Education Bill, draft 18-0839, which I think is the right draft that I was given and asked a comment about. So we support Pre-K Education and the expansion of it in public school settings. Just put it out there. We think there's just a great body of research that shows that early education for kids pays huge dividends over the long term. So it's a cost benefit to the state. And I don't know if you recall back in, I think it was 2009, 2010, there was a summer study committee. Duncan Kilmartin was the chair of it back then. And they had a professor up from Rutgers, gentleman named Stephen Barnett, Barnett who had Rutgers to its great credit has a 40 plus year longitudinal study on early education. In other words, high quality, and it's gotta be high quality education for kids, over a 40 year lifespan that they had been studying, I assume it's still going on, showed dramatic increases in income for these kids, lower rates of incarceration, lower rates of Medicaid, better health outcomes. It was just over and over and over again how it was paying enormous dividends to the state and the society as a whole. So the emphasis was there as I think it should be here on high quality education. The bill before you, I think start is a good direction, good step in the right direction. It eliminates some of the multiple regulatory housing structures that public schools were having to encounter with the AHS and AOE, kind of their regulatory systems, if you will, overlaid. This bill would have them on the public school settings have one regulatory home, if you will, the AOE, which we think that's an improvement and we applaud that effort. I'll just say as a threshold matter, it doesn't limit the public school, the public dollar voucher system that benefits, frankly in our opinion, the well to do. The three thousand or so dollars tends to go to a lot of higher income people who can afford that a high quality, early education system in a private setting or otherwise, and then it's just sort of a tax windfall for them where they would probably send their kids already to that private provider. So I'll just, I'll leave it there. On page five of the bill, the draft bill would only require private providers to have a licensed teacher present at the site during the hours they are publicly funded, whereas the public school pre-K provider must have a teacher provide the direct instructions and we think that's inherently unfair and should be corrected. I think it's important that as the record study showed, demonstrably demonstrated to us here in the state many years ago that having a teacher in the classroom is the critical component and we think that's true here. So whether the instruction is taking place in a private setting or a public school setting doesn't matter. What you want is a licensed professional in front of the kids working with the kids. That's where you hit the bang for the buck and that's what we're all trying to do. I think you're educate the kids and improve the outcome in society. So I think that's a point that should be corrected. And also the work you folks did on special education, DMG said as much that you want teachers providing the actual instructions, not somebody else. And so if you're gonna take it there, I think we think it equally applies here in the pre-K setting. On page 11, we recommend that a minor adjustment, if you will, parents should be involved. Support that 110%, absolutely. But it ought to be done in a manner that doesn't disrupt the educational environment. Seems obvious, but I thought I would say it anyway. Just because there, we occasionally do here instances where parents who are overly involved, shall we say, and it doesn't always work out that well. So they're just putting some limitation on that, we thought was important. In the same subsection for A, the rulemaking, inserting the word only after the inaction. So it's to ensure that some limitation on the administrative process, you couldn't have a parent challenging every little action that the school does or does not do. You want to limit it to the funding, I think is what it was on that page 12. Yeah, the enrollment or billing. So limiting it to the inaction there on that, not just sort of everyday curriculum or decisions along the way. Same rules, subsection of the same rulemaking section. The word private should be added to ensure that the public and private providers, safety and quality requirements are reported by the secretary, not just as to a public setting. I think it's important if we're gonna provide state money, the private as well as public providers, the secretary's reporting on their measures. I ask that your attention is to have the secretary of education or the secretary of AHS report on privates and the secretary of education report on public. That's a fair question. I was reading this as a secretary of education, but your point is a valid one. If the AHS is going to be the regulatory home with the private providers, perhaps that secretary ought to be reporting the same measures about safety and quality as does the AOE as to the public school settings. I mean, I think we want to know how they're doing, whether the program is doing, how the state's money is being spent, whether it's in a private or public setting. So we ought to have the same report coming back, whether it's in a private or public school setting. That was the point. So your suggestion that we ought to make distinctly clear, whether it's AHS secretary or AOE secretary, is a valid one. With that, my comments are written. I don't need to read them before you. I went through them fairly quickly and have to answer any questions. In all, in large, I think the bill's a step in the right direction, frankly. And we would essentially have supported with a few modifications along the way. That's a good effort. Thank you. Representative Cooper, we have a question. Yeah, Jeff, can you refer to having parental participation? Yes. I have said time after time, certainly, how do we get parents involved in today's society in a children's education without disrupting the educational program? How do we do this? Any reflection on that? I don't think I'm not worried about the parents who are involved. In this case, I was worried about parents who are too involved. What you're asking is the same coin, but the other side, which is the parents who are not involved. And one of the things we've talked about, I think Martha mostly, has talked about co-location of AHS services, and I'll just put it out there, different bill. A lot of kids suffer from AHS, adverse childhood experiences. Their parents are dropping them off already at school. What our suggestion was, you've got capacity perhaps available in some of these schools. Why not put co-locate social services in schools? It's an efficient delivery model. And grab the parent, if you will, to provide services as they drop their kid off in the morning or pick them up in the afternoon and they come an hour earlier, or whatever the case may be. If that were true, you might then, as a parent, feel more inclined to go down the hall to your son or daughter's classroom and participate. And that is probably a good thing. And so, I mean, I don't know how you get people who are not, I couldn't imagine having not been involved in my kid's elementary school. That's who me and my wife are, if you will. But there are enough parents who struggle, whether it's with opioids or financially and they can't get out of work. And I think that's a, it is a significant challenge, but as far as, you know, we thought the co-location of services, of AHS services, of social services, in the school setting, where there may be capacity, would be a wise, efficient use of dollars and resources. And it may have the added benefit, as you suggest, to get parents more involved in their kid's lives in the school setting. Other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Jay, if you want to have an obstacle for me, you can. I was supposed to score early because I had a EAU basketball practice that hasn't been canceled. And I'm willing to do whatever you need me to do, David. I can go now or I can go after you. Doesn't matter to me. I have, I have a view of it. Just the list in front of me. That's all. Okay. There you go. Thank you very much. I don't have to tell you this. I'm sorry, can I get back up? Yeah, well, he needs lots of practice, but I don't think he has to make much effort. Yeah. I'll have him quickly. Okay, that's all right. I know. Get on the stand. No, they want me to lie and we could specifically talk about savings. Okay. We can have a conversation. We're going to talk about smaller relationships. I know, absolutely. Yeah. I think we should have a conference. We can have a conversation. We can have a conversation. See you later, ladies. We can have a conversation. I'm going to put them up on you. I'm going to talk more about money. Anything appropriate? Two extra years. See, not so much. See, I'm going to talk about money. Oh, yeah. Welcome, Jay. Thank you. Jay Nichols, Vermont Principal's Association, Executive Director. Actually, I love going after other people, so I'm gonna make a couple quick comments related to what Jeff had to say. Supportive. Of course. Fine, of course. So when I read through, I had the understanding that the safety quality part, my thought was AHS, I don't know, this is just a supposition on my part. AHS was gonna take care of the safety quality reports related to privates, and that AOE was going to in terms of publics. So I'm not sure if that is the intention of the committee in the bill, but in either case, I think that needs to be clearly spelled out. And it was an assumption on my part, and until I heard Jeff say that, I was like, oh, yeah, I never really looked at it that way. We have to understand this better because in the end, we wanna have to be able to talk about all the critical issues of the state and we get information different from the two different agencies than are prevented from understanding that data. On the other hand, I think if we do move forward with AOE being the home for public pre-K and AHS being the home for private pre-K, then we have to find a way how that data melds at some point. Right, some metrics that are the same or something. Could be all collected at the moment by the Secretary of Education or it could be collected by each agency and connected at the top, but we have to understand that better. Okay, and then second thing I wanted to comment there, Jeff mentioned the licensed teacher providing instruction. I didn't put that in my testimony, but I fully support that and I think it should be a given if we do look at the relationship between high quality achievement and the outcomes that were mentioned in the record study and there's a lot of other studies that are out there, especially the longitudinal studies, high quality instruction is the number one factor. That the school controls in terms of student success from preschool right on through. So I think it's really important that we make sure that it's the top teachers. One of my reasons I supported the DMG study so much in the move towards a census model is looking at having the best instructors providing instruction. So to have somebody on site who has a license that's at a private school or at a public school and they just happen to be there, that's no good at all. That's like having Sparky Anderson in our point of your practice but not teaching your baseball team how to play. Even though Sparky Anderson is right. I'm going to try to take a stand. Sorry about that. Some of us. Some of you. So just I think it's really important that you have high quality instruction being provided directly to the students by licensed providers, instructors. So just a few major points for us. First of all, overall, we support the elimination of the joint administration. Having it be AOE taking the lead on this makes perfect sense to us. We think moving the accounting and contracting functions from school districts to the agency has a lot of potential. When I testify, I think of systems like Rob's and Rutland City where things are fantastic. The leadership is very strong. They have stability. And a lot of places like that, it really is not an issue. But when you look at places in rural parts of the state, places that are really struggling with trying to interpret this law, with dealing with fingerprint fiasco that we had to deal with last year, a lot of those places, it'll be much better for them if we could take the administrative burden off them and have it be at the state level. So I support what the bill talks about there. On page two, and we also support the idea of making things as clear as possible. On page two, I hope my version is not the right version. I took the liberty of suggesting replacement language for two as follows. When I read that paragraph, I read it three, four times and instead it makes sense to me. I think a simpler way to say it would be as I've outlined here, pre-Kinnegardian education means services and learning experiences for pre-Kinnegardian children that is developmentally appropriate and based on Vermont's learning standards. I think that's what you're trying to say. If not, then I stand corrected. We also support the idea of the National Association for Education of Young Children, Accreditation or Four Stars, a DCF program for private providers and then having a licensed endorsed teacher on site during hours that are publicly funded. But again, during those publicly funded hours, that person is actually given instruction. They're the ones that are doing the instruction piece during that time. We support the changes to public provider around providing district construction during hours publicly funded again. For public schools as well, it should be an instructional teacher who has the skill set teaching the kids. And then I talked a little bit and I don't need to read this to you about the continued concerns I have around the equity issue with preschool. I think pre-Kinnegardian education, I think our goal with Act 166 and all the work that's been done and this again is moving in the right direction. I think we're still missing the ball. I really feel like a lot of parents that are working class poor or are in major poverty issues that do not have the transportation are in a situation where they cannot access preschool. As a superintendent, the way I combated that was by having full day programs. Now all school districts can make that happen. They may not have the board support or the financial wherewithal to try to develop those types of programs. Until we get programs where a parent can drop their kid off or have the bus pick their kid up and they pick them up at the end of the day, we're missing the ball and a lot of people that really need the services not getting it. The other side of that and the people that I know that are using this as a daycare advantage. They already were sending their kids to high quality daycare and now what they're doing is the state's paying for 10 hours of it. So it's really like they're getting a subsidy to help pay for that. So that's a concern that I still have and I don't have a magic answer for it. But I think we need to find ways to make sure that the neediest kids are getting the instruction and support that they deserve and that they need. Because right now, I think we're actually helping widen the gap. What was the other question? Hi, can we do that? How do we do that? How do we get to our medias children? Well, I think the answer is and this is probably not the most popular thing to say but I think the answer is that when we put in kindergarten, all of a sudden we started getting the kids. So I really think we should start thinking about maybe pre kindergarten program, a four year old program is mandatory offered by schools and schools can't offer it over a certain timeline, obviously giving them the opportunity to scale up the way to do that and there are places that have space issues and stuff. But we've lost 30,000 kids. Most places we ought to be able to make this work. I would suggest that schools had to offer full day preschool as an option for parents. At least maybe over a four or five year period. I think if we get to that point we're really going to see the ability to really help the neediest kids. And my experience as a superintendent, not speaking as the executive director of the EPA was when we had kids that were full day, the progress that they made was unbelievable. And we were able to reach the kids that we needed to reach the most. They were in the school, they get used to the school setting, they learned the teachers, they learned the rhythms of the school. And before that, when we were part time and we had a cap on how many kids we could have and we had a waiting list and all that foolishness we had kids that really needed it that were missing and I have to pull names out of a hat and see which kid would go next. Terrible. At least now the current system, we've got away from the cap so we can have as many students as we want but still parents can't always access it. So we need to find a way. I would advocate for a great public program full day. I would. Doesn't necessarily have to be every day. But I think that's the only way parents can do it. I would pay for out of the end fund. I also love how you guys throw that in there. I think if it's used for education you're counting in the ADM, absolutely. If you're using the voucher program which I also don't support. I really think it should be tied at the ADM. We talk about not having vouchers for high school and not having charter schools but we're going almost exactly the opposite in a way by allowing parents of means to make the choices that they want for their kids whereas parents with less means don't have that same option. Since we don't have that right now since we don't have that now I think that probably you would find that many members of this committee would really like to be able to go there. Since we don't have that now what is the next best way for us to reach the neediest or neediest children? I really think it's gonna have, I think this bill is a step in the right direction. I think the way that it's gonna happen though is by local superintendents, school boards and principals working locally to try to have full day programs wherever they can. And I know that superintendents are really on top of their game and are really gonna look at this because they're gonna see that after 10 hours I can get ADM for this. So I'll get the voucher for the first 10 hours, I've got the space, I've got the teacher already who's licensed, I'm gonna have a full day program. So some places are gonna do this because they know it's the right thing to do and there's an avenue now for them to do it that didn't exist four or five years ago. Other places are gonna look at it and we can't really do anything because we don't have the space. And this bill does open up that possibility that could motivate schools to start looking at an all day program. There's no question that it will. There's no question that it will. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. You have more testimony? No. I have questions for me. Representative Miller. Do you think we have the space now that we have 30,000 fewer children? I think we do in some places. There are places that have grown a lot that don't and there also are regulations that are different than they were in 1997 where there's more small group instruction and those types of things. But I do think there are places that can do that. I think schools will try to do that where they can. Are you aware that Head Start and the National Follow-through Program had full day kindergartens for about 10 years throughout the state with in certain parts of the state and in certain parts of the country where those projects existed. It's part of the Johnson Great Society Program. I know that there were kindergarten, I mean Head Start programs. We have them in Richard actually that they basically pulled out last year because of funding issues. Representative Lohan. Just going up on the alde pre-k, you said mandatory, we don't. Mandatory schools offer it. Right, mandatory schools offer it because we don't even have mandatory kindergarten. But are you seeing, and yet most, all schools offer it all day. I think there's a few that still offer it all day, but most of them are all day. And you mentioned four-year-olds. Are you hearing on a regular basis that there are parents who wish that they had that option available in their public school system? So this is something that's been a cry or a request for you. Certainly where I live, it's huge. How about more broadly from your new role here? Do you hear that? I've not heard a lot from principals about this. It'd be great to hear. It'd be great to hear. Put a little survey out to folks. Be glad to hear that. Fantastic. And where do you live? Remind us where you live. Either in Berkshire, but more importantly, I live right next to Richford and Neinsburg, two very poor communities that really have the need. And the preschool program and Berkshire and Richford and Neinsburg in those three towns has made a huge difference in the lives of kids in that area. Isn't that a public program? Those are public programs in the school. Yes, sir. All day. All day. And by all day, you mean 730-5? Well, it's different each building. Some of them have a buy-in. We can go right to the after-school program. Berkshire actually has a licensed daycare as part of the program that I wrote a grant for back in 1998 or 2009 when I was principal there. So they actually have a daycare that's licensed there right now where the kids can stay after. So each school's a little bit different. In some places it provides transportation. Others don't. Saddleman City, they transport their kids. Your school kids get on the bus. Great, thank you. Other questions? Thank you very much, Jay. Thank you, Jay. Robert Bliss, going from small, tiny Enosburg in Richburg to Big Bad Rutland, the best city in the state. Hey, you got it. That's the representative Coopley, who knows all about Stafford, Kessler. There, you're going to go to St. Mark's, representing Coopley. You're going to go to St. Mark's, representing Coopley, who knows all about Stafford, Kessler. I'm going to give you a big pat on the way. I was going to give one to Scott. Mr. Greed, right, Dylan? There's two different ones. I never agreed. Oh, whoops. No, that's what we agreed on. That's right. This one, please. Okay. All right. It will be cool. That's good. It is afternoon. Kess, you've been in this room too long. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for your service, and for inviting me here to talk today. My name is Robert Bliss. I reside at 10 Highland Avenue, Rutland, Vermont. I'm currently employed as the Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Rutland City, where one of the things I do is oversee our interaction with Pre-K throughout our city and support of our students. I'm here to offer testimony on the topic of Pre-K. However, given recent events, I cannot shrink from the responsibility to make a statement regarding public health as it relates to firearm safety. My opinion statements on this topic on my own, they do not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer. I'm here on my own time today. We're beyond a tipping point as a country and a state in terms of public health and safety as they relate to guns. You all, and Vermont, can be leaders in the USA by enhancing meaningful legislation now. That will have a positive impact over a long period of time without stepping on the desires and rights of citizens to own and use firearms. Sadly, school shootings and mass shootings are not the biggest cause of injury. They're tragic, graphic, emotional, unforgettable, and they need to be addressed. Further, these adults have failed our children. Robert, we're talking about Pre-K. I might agree with you 100% with regard to guns and things are going to happen in this body, but today we're talking about Pre-K. And I'm with you on that, and I'd ask you respectfully to take a look at the article that I've included. I've also contacted all the VATERS, DC legislators. I appreciate your respect, sir. All right, on the topic of Pre-K in this bill, which is really why I'm here, I looked at this bill and I really appreciate that you invited me to come and give you the thoughts as they would pertain in the city of Rutland and the system that we work within. As I look at this, the Pre-K bill that you have is organized basically in three areas. One, to provide Pre-K providers to serve one agency. You've heard testimony about that. Also to minimize the provider's efforts to gain revenue for all the work they do. And then also to simplify and clarify what quality means. So I'll try to organize my thoughts and input based on those three areas. And I have a very kind of big picture and Rutland-centric view. So I'll do the best I can to give you something, some considerations that would be helpful. Thank you. One agency for regulation. Overall, that's a great idea. You heard and I heard from the providers we work with about the confusion and work they had to do in trying to serve essentially two masters, the agency of human services and the agency of education. So that's a good start. That's a real opportunity. And I'll talk in terms of opportunities and challenges. It makes business easier for those providers and for Pre-K only. The challenge there is that those private and public providers, they still have to interact with the agency of human services and all the regulations that have to do with daycare and childcare. So they're still gonna do that work anyway. This will save them some time in terms of gaining revenue. In terms of minimizing the efforts to receive revenue from providers, we interacted with, I think, 12 different Pre-K providers in Rutland City all the way from Burlington, because we didn't create a boundary. We had one student that went to Pre-K in Burlington as far south as Wallingford and within Rutland City. And so their biggest thing, as I talked to some of them, was it was a struggle. They appreciated the attention that we gave to their work and making sure we had a good working partnership. But they were frustrated in other places where it was like pulling teeth to get the business done. We, let's see. Oh, so as this bill started a long time ago, it looked like, and you heard about the economic benefits. I heard Jay talk about, you know, and also Jeff maybe about talking about how it continues to create a divide between the people who have resources and those that don't. As this bill started to lay out early on, it was really about economics. I heard about providing childcare providers with more revenue. I heard about decreasing the cost borne by parents and also getting parents back to work sooner. And, you know, it's still, those efforts are still in place and it'll help people to gain from those things. The challenges in terms of minimizing this revenue piece, they're pretty big from a Rutland standpoint. And so I just want to articulate some of those for you. First, if you make the agency the sole provider of tuition and monitoring attendance, who's enrolled, who's not, you essentially take the agency of education and you increase your burden. And I've yet to meet the state agency that has as its goal to increase the number of accounts they serve and increase the burden on their business office. Accurate accounting of students that are enrolled in Pre-K was the biggest challenge for us in the past year. Only the providers we serve that serve three or fewer students were able to accurately reflect the kids that were enrolled in their space and create an invoice that said, here's who's here and we monitor that closely and we help them. If they made an error and we said, this is wrong, you actually deserve more money. Or, this is an error and we need to decrease this. Can you issue a new invoice? It's not because they're not ethical. It's just that that was kind of a new business function for them and the communication between their education system and their finance departments just wasn't quite up and running yet. And that was complicated by the mobility of students in Rutland. So we had a lot of students who move around from place to place, families move, kids move. And then also we actually had kids who were discharged and kind of left on the rolls there. Not out of places like Head Start and your public access places, but in some of the private providers, they weren't really prepared to work with some of the students that they met. My CFO, Peter Amons would want me to advise you that the loss of ADM in a public level school is gonna, will drive up the per pupil cost at the local level and the tax rate. Amons is our CFO, he's watching our tax rate and he knows that if we drop that small ADM that we collect, that means our tax rate goes up. In the big picture, perhaps there's a wash there, but locally will be challenged quite a bit. This would be the first, it's interesting. I really look at this as the first step possibly toward a single statewide system of education. And if that's a goal, then okay, it's kind of a step in the right direction. Secretary Hulkin gave testimony that the Agency of Education could be prepared by June 2019 to shoulder the burdens of the bill you have. That's a pretty quick turnaround. They're excellent people who work there. They have great hearts and I thank them every day. As I did this morning, interacting with Chad Daniels at the AOE. However, it's widely understood that their agency like the others in Vermont are really taxed. And their capacity is challenged. By making the Agency of Education a single transaction point, it would establish many new schools for the agency to deal with. As an example, in Roland City, instead of dealing with one entity, the Agency of Education would have to be in contact with nine. And it moves kind of away from consolidation and creates more work at the Agency of Education. And again, it's a step toward a statewide system. The thing about equity, I heard Jay and Jeff both speak about that. And in my view, when I look at the opportunity for regional adjustments for tuition, that's a step away from equity too, I think. And so I look at that saying like, okay, it's a benefit for me in Chittenden County. Maybe the cost or a little more. It might be worth 4,500 bucks in Chittenden County. And Roland County is worth 3,100. I think all parents and providers would be grateful for that, but adjusting regionally is kind of tough. In terms of simplifying quality or the understanding of quality, on the surface, pre-K providers may see this as a real relief. I agree, the NACI accreditation and Least Four Stars is a great foundation. That's the real positive and opportunity here. The challenges are that in Roland, one of the real winning things we got out of this was a close relationship with our providers. Our goals were clearly quite simple. Establish a good relationship, learn from the providers, and then try to work on quality with them. So some of the things that we did, we reached out to them. What are your professional development needs? How can we help you? How can we support you? And also through the ADM, we hired a lead teacher in pre-K that was in each provider's classroom every week, doing observations, communicating, helping, connecting with parents. What we thought was the best use of that, not to take it and put it in our pocket, but to take it and say, okay, if we're really working for quality, we wanna make this work for quality. And so this year we offered the following, free, no-cost professional development to our partners and anybody in Roland who wanted to come. Early language acquisition, strengthening families, early literacy, establishment of positive community and class, and understanding childhood trauma. If we no longer oversee our partners and have no ADM to count, we probably won't be able to follow through with that. Having a licensed and qualified teacher present, present is a step back. Take a step forward, just as these other two gentlemen said, you really, we really need and research says a licensed master teacher providing instruction. The hypothetical scenario that you get, let's say you have a large center-based pre-K outfit in a small city and they do their due and they employ one licensed early ed teacher who's on site all the time. Hypothetically, that licensed teacher may never ever step in a classroom and work in other places. Now the people giving the instruction and caring for those kids are wonderful, make no mistake. They're there because they care, they sure aren't getting rich. And they're there because they care about little kids. But if you want high-level instruction, you do need a licensed, highly qualified master teacher. Research plays that out. And I agree with both of those gentlemen who said that. Write that down, Jeff, you and I agree. I know, it's the first now. So three, you talked about, somebody asked about getting families involved and one of the real positives that came out of that is our early involvement with parent and family engagement. Literally breaking down silos so that we're working closely with families from the times the kids are three, as soon as they turn three, they're enrolled with us. We know them, we understand them. We're looking at their needs. We're working across agencies in Rutland City and we're doing everything we can to engage the families. In fact, asking them what can we do to work with you and learn from you about how your child can do better or how we can support you and your family in supporting your child. That, by the way, is the big effort in Project Visions Health Committee and Promise Community Work. It's about connecting and working closely with young families. It's about community health, wellness and education. It's not just about school. It's about creating healthy young families which leads to healthy kindergartners and hopefully better results. So if we're not connected like we are now, we may lose that. We're still going to reach out. We still do an awful lot of work but I just want you to know that we may lose that. If the AMC beds method of monitoring the quality piece, so it says in there that the secretary has to develop a method by which, you know, the agency will monitor quality. And my concern here is that if that measuring equality comes down to the kindergarten readiness survey, which is pretty good, subjective, or standards based on teaching strategies, gold and any other kind of standards-based assessment, the results are predictable and predetermined. Just look at the economy. Look at the economics of the families and the schools who walk in. That you're assessing and you can tell who's gonna do well and who's not. Our students and families that come from transitioning, chaotic, families in need, those kids walk into those pre-K settings wired differently than you and I could ever imagine and they create certain challenges and they have specific needs. And I can tell you right now that that looks a lot different than head start, looks a lot different than if you walked in the Grace preschool in Rutland. Okay. So you can just look at it. And my concern there is if we follow a similar path that we do with public education, we have wonderful head start programs in Rutland. I heard you talking about head start. We actually tried to get early head start set in Rutland and we didn't get that federal grant. We were looking for some help. We didn't quite get it. They got it in Bangton. But I wanna tell you, our head start places are brilliant and wonderful, but they're serving students that the private providers will not be served. And so when you look at the assessments, people are gonna look at that and go, what's the matter with head start? Well, there's nothing wrong with head start. They're doing wonderful things, okay? And I wanna just give you that perception so that you can say like, okay, be aware. General observations, and this was echoed already today, high quality pre-K for all students does not come cheap or easy, okay? It requires an all-in approach. If a mom really wants long-term education and economic benefits from high quality pre-K, it takes a model based on research and that's out there. Large cities and other states have done it effectively. Take a look at Boston public schools and then I've provided some resources for you on high quality pre-K. The Rutgers National Institute for Early Education is one of the key places you go for your research on early and pre-K, but also you can search a study done around the Boston City Public Schools model, which again, like I say, it wasn't cheap, but incredible results based on having master level teachers, controlled class sizes and good places and you get good results. That's it, I appreciate your time, I appreciate your flexibility and I'm happy to listen to any questions or anything anybody has. So you said that one thing you really like right now is you sort of get a hold of all three-year-olds, sort of it. We get a relationship with them absolutely. But is that really all three-year-olds or only those who are either enrolled in a public pre-K or a private pre-K where they're called? Great question, right now the ones that we have that closest interaction with are the ones that are enrolled in that universal pre-K model, so that's 139 students and on top of that, the kids who are triple E, but perhaps not enrolled in that model. But I'll tell you that those, the kids that we don't meet, they're going to private pre-Ks and they're in pre-K shape. Roland has a great collection of private pre-Ks that are not part of the universal pre-K model and we have a lot of families that have the means to send their kids there and maybe they're two or three days a week or half days and then they're home with parents or on to another daycare. We estimate that if we had 240, 250 enrolled students, we'd be at 100%. So we're about, do you math on that? It's, we're close to half there anyway. But yeah, those relationships and if you look at that, the strength of any family's work we're doing across our community, not just with the kids we know. And then if you look at all the Title I and the Flamboyant Foundation's research on the importance of family engagement, you're going to see that to be early and often and create a great relationship with the parents and you have a great chance of being successful. I ask about special ed, I don't know how much of your responsibility has to do with special ed, but one of the, we just produced a special ed bill and one of the questions that came up is what is the responsibility of school districts with regard to special ed for pre-K students and what is happening in different districts around the state. So what's your perception of or how do you deal with the special ed needs of pre-K people? So that's early essential education, triple E what everybody calls it. And so every community and statewide, as children go through birth to grade two, we actually have a connection for children, students who are identified birth through kindergarten and then on. Family infant, toddler connection, K to two and then once they turn three, if they qualify based on a developmental delay or any number of a couple of other delays you can have as a child, we create an interaction with those families and essentially an individual education plan that addresses the student's needs in triple E. That can look like outreach to wherever that child is and we have a number of children that do that or some of the pre-Ks that we do are collaborative with Head Start. We were literally the first district in the state to run collaborative Head Start preschools. Some time ago, I was still principal at Northwest School and we did that. I can't take credit for it. I'll give credit to Head Start for making that approach but it was a great connection. And so those kids that are center-based that come to our classrooms, we serve them right there. So at Peer Point Primary Learning Center there are three Head Start, Relent State Public Schools classrooms, we serve those. Down on Meadow Street, there's six more and we serve all the students that are there and then we do outreach for the rest. We just did a report to our school board on the number of students we're serving and if I remember correctly, for ages three and four and five but not yet in kindergarten, we have 49 students that we're serving in terms of early essential education. So I was, that's great information, thank you. Also, what about students? It sounded to me like in your Head Start program, these were students that some of whom had an IEP and were getting special ed services. Was that all through triple E funding? Correct. So if they have, you don't have like a triple E class. That is correct. Okay. So if in any, so all of the, is this true for all of the pre-K students you have that have an IEP that are funded through triple E funding? So for their special ed services, they are not for their pre-K. So they get their special education in addition to whatever the universal pre-K services. Even in private centers. That is correct. Yeah, okay. And even in homes, our teachers go out to homes if there's a family that's homebound and a child that can't get where, we're sitting, we're going to their home. How do you find out about those students? Usually medical, you know, medical interaction or social worker will notice a child with a delay or a family with a need, something like that. You know, thank goodness for those folks. Otherwise, you know, every once in a while, there's a child that walks in as a kindergarten student that really kind of nobody's ever seen. And then, you know, it's a big wake up call. Other questions? Yes. What about capacity in the city school system for a complete public? Yeah. Yeah, that's, you know, Jay's thought there on a, you know, a four year old full day pre-K as an educator and a community member. I'd love to see that. Out right now, our space, if we did that, we'd have to move three of our head start classrooms out. But that, you know, the offsetting weight, you know, would kind of be all right. We'd be tight. I think we'd probably have to find a little bit of extra space. I mean, we would need probably eight classrooms to run a four year old all day. And right now, I can think of probably five spaces that we could use. So we might need to find, you know, another three spaces to go to work on that. You know, and I have to say that if you want, I think for a high quality move, a couple of things you heard, you know, that schools offering, you know, early ed for four year olds, making sure we're connected with services and supports for families and establishing good relationships early. It's another kind of formula for a winner. But like I said, it's not cheap. It's a great question. Thank you very much. Next up we have Kate Rogers. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Have a great day. Thank you. Have a good one. Very interesting. How are you. How are you saying, is that all right? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There you are. Thank you. Thank you very much. Oh, that was a good play. Thanks. You know, the quality of your work, the example of where you are doing. You know, how long are you going to be doing that? That's okay, we're not going to end it up. I mean, you are going to do it today, so I'll have to keep it. Okay, I'm going to move around. All right, let's go ahead and talk about what you've got to say. And you can continue, but you didn't send this over to me. I don't have this, I don't have this, this didn't. You have both of these here. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you so much. Okay, there it goes, didn't. Okay, don't say it, I'm trying not to say it. Okay, this is, it's just for one of those things to mitigate hurt. That's all right, we'll be all right. Okay, you know, okay, I'll go back to you. There you go, okay, and then I'll put that back. All right, I've been looking forward to speak with you. So what you have in front of you is the new pre-K quality report that was sent over yesterday to legislature by the Agency of Education, as well as a memo from a Dr. Amy Fowler on five-year-old enrollment in pre-K. So we thought that they would both be interesting to you today, though I'm not fully reporting out on the quality report, but I will and want to share data with you regarding that report. So, and then I'll take questions and see if I can answer those questions and if I can, I'll take them back to the Agency and provide you with information as we move forward with the bill. So, I'm going to speak on pre-K enrollment first. And this past school year, FY 17, 2016, 2017, we had a total of 9,160 pre-K students, which was an increase of 26% or 1,917 children from the previous year, which would have been FY 16. 225 of those children were children who were five years of age using a proxy cutoff date as September 1 in pre-K for that year. So there's 225 children who were still five years old who remained in pre-K that year, or this past year. 8,935 of the children were three and four-year-olds, which was 97.5% of the pre-K enrollment. I'm sorry, can I just fairly caught up with you? Oh, sorry. The 225 that were five years old or these ones were not eligible to be in kindergarten? They actually, the proxy date was September 1 that we used for this cutoff. And those children were five years old as of September 1. So that means that, yes, that they were five-year-olds who could have been in kindergarten that were in pre-K for this past year. So 225 children were eligible for kindergarten? Yes. I thought we weren't going to fund those students. So they were, well, in the fall, there was a memo that was sent out by our deputy regarding the five-year-old piece. And some of those children were already enrolled, and we had to make accounting for that. So it ended up that these, the 225, the 2.5% were enrolled then in pre-K that could have gone to K this year. Next year, it will be different, OK? Yeah. So as we're discussing children with developmental needs or children who are eligible to receive special education service and they have an active IEP, out of the 9,160, there was 1,146 children who were on IEPs this past school year, and 45 of those children were five-years-old as of the September 1. So that means 3.9% of children who would have been eligible for K that actually stayed in pre-K for this year was the 3.9%. Is there any questions about the enrollment figures? Are you going up with this chart? I am going up with the talk. So that's 45 students that were Triple E students, right? Yes. Yes, and I need to clarify, Triple E is essential early education, and it has been used for years in the state since like 1985, actually, or maybe in 2001, when the program began up in Burma, Luton, in that school district. And we've used Triple E to refer to for children who were receiving special education services. As Act 62 came into being, and then, again, Act 166, we had a high number of folks from the field. Starting really to not understand what Triple E was versus pre-K. And so we thought, well, we're going to go with the federal definition of early childhood special education, which also aligns with our teacher licensure for early childhood special education as opposed to using the Triple E language just because it was confusing. So early childhood special education is Triple E, but it does mean services for children who have been identified with the developmental delay or disabilities and are on an active IEP and receive special education at our related services from the school districts. So you just wanted to clarify that a little bit, because you see Triple E, and then you also see early childhood special ed. Yeah, so I'm a little confused. So maybe you could help me understand maybe some other members of the committee. So pre-K for special ed services delivered to pre-K students, we do not use the reimbursement system that we use for FK through 12 students. We use a different system called Triple E that has a separate line item. And is that also a reimbursement methodology to that, or is it a grant process? No, it's like a grant. So the Triple E state grant uses the system, the formula that comprises that is based on how many children are in first and second grade, and it's based on that formula that it's generated the number of dollars that the state puts towards Triple A through the state grant. The school districts also utilize IDA, which is individuals with disabilities, Part B dollars, the basic grant, and preschool dollars to support special education services for all three, four, and five-year-olds who require that. So those are the major federal and state grants that are available for school districts to utilize to support children with disabilities. So the IDA money goes through the reimbursement process, right? That the basic B grant does. There's a preschool portion of that IDA B grant that is called the 619 dollars, not to make things more confusing. But school districts will use that finding as well, and can be reimbursed for those dollars. So the treatment. They're reimbursed at a 60% level or 100% level. I need to check on that for those particular federal dollars. That would be helpful. As we move forward in pre-day and special ed, we need to figure out how the notion of moving to this census model blends with, or conflicts with, or with triple E funding. OK. I will get that clarified for you. Thank you very much. Yeah, represent the common. Just to follow up on the triple E, so if a district is serving a special need student in a private pre-K center, because they're on an IEP, what we heard, although I'm now hearing something different, was that that's not really reimbursed at the 60% because it's a pre-K student, and they're treated differently. But there is additional funding available through this triple E model that you're talking about. But the triple E state grant is minimal dollars. There's probably about a million dollars that is shared across all of our school districts. And our school districts moving away from, you know, it used to be, you take all the triple E kids, bus them to a central location, and have a triple E program. Is it now being more dispersive on various pre-K whether public or private? So yes. In Vermont, when the triple E services began with IDA law back in 1985, those programs started to pop up. And the school district offered triple E services to children who were identified and brought them to the schools or other programs and provided those services. As we move forward with really, through the years, with really looking at best practice for supporting children in programs, Vermont as actually a leader in the country for providing services to children on IEPs in a regular education setting. So school districts started to operate their own early childhood classrooms. And they were bringing in, way back now, is what they called role models to support the inclusion of children with special needs into those programs. So now it's kind of the reverse. For when we report out our activities to the Office of Special Education programs in Washington, we report on how many children who are receiving special education services are receiving those services in a regular ed classroom. So we are reporting on those numbers. So we support inclusionary practices. And Vermont is one of the leaders in the country on surfacing children in the regular ed settings, no matter if it's a public pre-K, or if it's private pre-K, if it's a Head Start classroom, or if it's a home-based childcare. So we are able to support the children and reap the benefit of the child being in a regular ed setting who is in need of to access and participate in the curriculum in that program to promote their growth and development. So yes, we've come a long way with our least restricted environment rules. Thank you. Other questions? No, please continue. So I'm here to answer questions if I can. So I also want to talk about the program standards, which is in the pre-K quality report. And as of 2017, November, we had 382 public and private pre-K programs that were operating across the state. 50% of those programs, 78 were public. And 115 were private had obtained their National Association for the Education of Young Children accreditation, or were five-star programs. So that's a good number. 39% of the programs, 50 that were public and 100 that were private, obtained four stars. I don't have one in my hand so I can show them. Can I borrow one? Yes. No, you should probably think I just need one. Did I do? OK. No, thank you. Oh, thank you. OK. OK. So these are just highlights of this pre-K report. The regions identified in the map above, those are AHS service regions? Yes. Yes. So we have to do that because as you know, the AHS service regions and the private and the public schools kind of crossover. So we utilize those regions as someone of a base for regional work. So 10% of the programs, eight which are public and 31 that are private, have three stars with an approved plan. So overall, again, we have 382 public and private pre-K programs that are operating as of November 1, I believe that was 2017. Now some of these programs have been in operation for upcoming three years. And we had about 225, I think it was programs that were coming up for renewal of their qualification for pre-K. So the agency and the agency of human services knew that this was coming, but then we needed to develop a way to process the renewals. And so our data team at the agency of education worked diligently and very hard to develop a new system in order to accept the renewal applications and then from now on new applications that are coming in from programs that want to seek to be an approved pre-K site. So this system is also shared for verification purposes with agency and human services. So we go to a common site. And the verifications that AHS are conducting, such as they ensure that the child care license is number is accurate, the program name, the address, the stars level, the child care licensing. They're in good status with that. That's all verified. And then the agency of education verifies the teacher license that the educator has a valid license with our system, that the curriculum is aligned with our Vermont Early Learning Standards and assurances such as these are programs that are non-religious and the assurance that they will in fact support children with special needs or need to accommodate those children. So we worked this into a, so right now it's working pretty well, but we are processing right now about 117 of those new applications that have come in so far. So I just wanted to share with you a little bit about how things are operationalized at the agency. That's great. We had a legislative report at breakfast yesterday that 200 pre-K centers had closed in the last year. Is that an accurate statement? I think it depends on when that came from, what data was collected on that. And so I'm not going to, I can't make an educated guess about that, so I'm not. But I think the basis for that needs to be looked at a little further. So it'd be helpful if the agency that provides statistics, I have also seen that we have over 1,300 child care centers. And I was wondering if when that statistics was quoted that they were talking about child care centers or they were talking about pre-K centers and were they talking about a net decrease or were they talking about losing 200 and gaining 200? Because we do have other centers opening, as I understand. So it would be helpful if we had accurate data to work with. I will take that back and we'll get back to you. We'll have to connect with our agency, Human Services Partners, for that. Also in the quality report are teacher standards. And I know you have had some compelling testimony about public school programs having a licensed teacher on-site for the full time, because that's part of our licensing regulations. So I'm giving the instruction. Giving the instruction for public schools. Thank you. I'm glad you corrected me on that. And then other testimony based on private centers and the requirement for a licensed teacher to be on-site and present when the 10 hours of pre-K are being provided. But the difference would be that private child care center based program, the educator is on-site, but the site might have multiple classrooms. So it may not be that the educator is in each of those classrooms for the same time. So you have heard some compelling testimony about the research behind that data. So we have in this report, again, the number of licensed early childhood educators or early childhood special educators and public programs total of 195 across 136 public programs. That's on the backside of the report. In private centers, there are 199 teachers across 181 private programs. In private family care home, child care homes, there are 33 family child care homes that either the owner is a licensed educator or they contract with a licensed educator to do the 10 hours. However, in 32 other family child care homes, that the home provider will contract with a licensed educator to support the three hours per week of support that they would receive to implement programming for children in their home. Thank you very much, Kate. I think I'm going to, we have other people to look at the three and we're actually going late and we'll get you back at some time with this additional information that you're going to find. Okay, all right, thank you. Thank you very much. I have one thing for you. So this is the Vermont Early Learning Standards and last time, not last time, but a few weeks ago when testimony was required for representative Sharp, you asked for a copy of this. I'm sending it down to you. All right, thank you. I'm going to have a look at it. Yes, please. I'll bring more if you like. This is online. That's a pleasure. So thank you for your time. Thank you. This report's online, you said? Yes, it is. It's posted. Okay. But you'll send it to us. Yes, I will send it to Marjorie. So, yes. A link? Yeah. Great, thank you. I'll send links. Thank you very much. Better yet, sir, the TVF. It's all there, but they're both here. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you. Yeah, that'll be good. Yeah, okay. Get that door open. Just a minute. Yeah, it'll just cross for you. Okay. Right. It is absolutely horrible here to see all of it. I texted Kate and said, would you please open it? Well, opening it doesn't make any difference. Oh, no, no, no, I promised and made a huge difference. If I can just say, don't think that. Marble, you sent up. Don't fall out. Don't fall out. Yeah, please don't fall out. Thomas Chin didn't want to catch you if you fall, so you've got to be careful. That's what I'm saying, sir. Oh, yes, you know, Mama, Chin is so kind to you, brother. You're doing one of these things for her. He's a guest. Yes, he's a guest. Does he know? I know him, too. Very devastating. That's what you're referring to, the one of Ethan Alderman. Is he motion? Oh, no, he's doing one of these, right? So he'll catch you. The storm is off, isn't it? Still might hurt. The storm is off. Yes, thankfully. So we have an opportunity to hear from students today. And Matthew. Pardon? Kuski. Kuski, thank you very much. Matthew Kuski, Hannah, uh-oh. Reha Nazarali ready. Right, Nazarali ready? Yes. Great. And Hope Paterno. Petraro. Petraro. Close. I could butcher anyway. Please join us. Thank you very much. You're welcome. You're welcome. Thank you. See? She's lining them up. Wow. Little full support. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. This is Reha. Tall and over, you can't express. This is you. This is you. This is you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So if I may, I'd like to address you as Matthew Hannah Hope. Welcome. You're from Montpelier High School. Yes. And I presume you participated in flag raising the other day. Yes. And proposed a place to be there. I don't know. I can't do that. A couple of members could not attend for health reasons, but the rest of us were there. And it was quite an emotional and important experience, I would say. So you're here today to share with us some thoughts about ethnic studies standards in schools. My head. Of course. I have something prepared on my phone, so when I looked out at it, it's not at all. Identify yourself for the record, please. My name is Hope Petraro. I don't know. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. My name is Hope Petraro. All right. I'm a sophomore at Montpelier High School, and I'm testifying today in support of the adoption of statewide ethnic studies standards and the creation of an ethnic and social equity standards advisory committee in Vermont. I was initially approached by Amanda Garsis, the woman who spearheaded the bill, with an invitation to learn more about the bill H794 and be involved not only in advocacy for the bill, but also in the process of helping draft it. I first down knowledge of the public education system in Vermont as well as what it means to be a student in today's America, and the organizing committee demonstrated that my input as a student leader was valued. That speaks for itself. I'm not just a leader of the future, but a leader of today. That is how we should be exercising the intent of education, lifting up students and encouraging them to be leaders. I'd like to begin with a quote. Age 794 is an institution that is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity, or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world. Age 71 and 4 populations but our duty to all students in their right to a historically accurate education that prepares them for today's world. As legislators you consider matters related to the educational needs of remonters, your priority is bettering the lives of students. H794 does this in a comprehensive way and to a great extent and a choice to support it is a choice to advocate for cultural competency, to advocate for greater historical awareness, to eradicate racial bias and to ensure all students can develop within Vermont's public education system feeling safe, secure and supported. In addition the agency of education has provided a somewhat deliberately intimidating exaggerated estimate of the costs needed to implement and sustain an ethnic and social equity standards advisory committee. I first encourage an analysis of whether fiscal responsibilities and budgetary concerns at way of students right to a quality public education and secondly a thorough analysis of the verity of such fledgling estimates and the initiative to research estimates that are less exorbitant and perhaps more accurate. The virtue of the current status of public education in America has long been disputed. Whatever that status is the Assembly of an Ethnic and Social Equity Standards Advisory Committee and the implementation of a statewide ethnic studies standards curriculum is certainly a step in the right direction. I thank you for inviting high school students with such as myself to speak and provide their input. Thank you for your time. Wonderful. Maybe if there's questions we'll take them out. Otherwise we can have questions for all three at the end of the presentation. So go ahead. Who's next? Hi my name is Frejana Nazarali Reddy. I'm a senior at Montpelier High School and I am also here to testify in favor of adding ethnic studies standards. I think that my experience of the Montpelier Public School Systems and the Vermont Public School System has been a very positive one in the sense that student input is valued and the ideas I mean recently in Montpelier High School we had an in-service day where students were able to speak about our experiences and specifically students of color about experiences within our education system that were compromising to their education be it restrictive or simply like demeaning and the school and the teachers and the administration were very receptive to these remarks and I think that speaks to the Vermont Education Public Education System in general and the adoption of ethnic studies standards would really I think make it a lot easier on teachers because it would be embedded so much in the curriculum a lot easier on teachers to facilitate like the education of this important part of our history that has been so much neglected in education for honestly for centuries that we are going we are moving through high school and graduating from high school I mean for some of us graduating in June this year with so little with this huge part of our history and our societal context just missing from our education and the addition of these standards would really ensure that it's sort of a great equalizer across the board would ensure that we are graduating with this knowledge and ready to be contributing systems contributing citizens excuse me with this full and well-rounded and complete education that is sort of lacking in our current system there are no fault of the individual teachers or curriculum but just because we're missing these standards that are so necessary for us to graduate and to even move through our high school lives since this is a motion from pre-k through 12 to grow as citizens in a way where we are more aware of and more educated on ethnic ethnic studies as well as all of the wonderful other history that we are currently educated on thank you hi I'm Matt Kuski I'm also a senior at one pillar high school and I'm testifying in favor of age seven nine four sort of to reiterate what people have said this bill is it to me it's more about the ethnic studies standards are more about providing a full education because people of color in this state are part of the identity of the state so if we're learning Vermont history or for learning American history part of that history is the history of people of color and the people of other ethnicities and that's just this this central purpose of our history classes if the central purpose of our education system is to actually allow us to participate in the democratic process to our fullest ability then we need the fullest education we can have thank you so I'm curious are you encouraging these ethnic studies standards to correct something that some that was lacking in my career high school or do you you support it more because you want to make sure that students in other high schools throughout the state have the access to the education that you have gotten it I think we're really looking at a combination of the two in comparison I mean I don't have the context of other high schools in Vermont to be able to speak to that but I think I mean I've been through three high schools out of the state of Vermont and I found that Montpelier High School makes a very active effort to include reference to and context for ethnic studies in all of our classes but I mean I took AP US history last year and we hardly touched on anything but white Eurocentric history and that's really through no fault of the teachers or the administration of the school but through the curriculum there's no there's no requirement to there isn't much of a requirement to teach like ethnic history there's no there's nothing forcing us to do that and I don't think that I think after a while after the implicated after the implementation of ethnic study standards it will no longer be a forced thing because this is a part of all of our histories and a part of all the students histories of the teachers histories in the states history so I think with the implementation what we're advocating for really is to have that sort of required so that it can become a natural part of the classroom environment and of everything that we are taught I have noticed that Montpelier High School there isn't really any conversation about native history in the state of Vermont so sort of when you bring up the history of the avanakis in Vermont and the uroquois in Vermont there's no there's no context for people to have conversations about native history so I think part of the most one of the most important things about this ethnic studies bill is that it could have the potential to open up those conversations and allow people to recognize how this state was created I think on one hand I've had I've been in several different school systems throughout my life but I think that the education that I'm receiving at Montpelier High School is by far like I think it's a phenomenal school system in relative to like in context that's relative to other school systems in the nation and I'm really thankful and privileged that I'm able to receive an education in Montpelier but at the same time I know that there are a lot of students who don't feel supported and feel like they're not learning about the history of their own culture and it is something that they're forced to sit with every single day and I'm thankful to the teachers at Montpelier for their efforts to expand their curriculum so it's more comprehensive but at the same time there's still work that needs to be done so I think that was going to achieve that. I recently learned that there was actually a family two families of African-American descent that farmed in Starksboro there's now one of those highway signs that marks the location of that farm where you taught anything about the African-American farming community in Vermont of actually pre-civil war? I wasn't taught anything in school but I do work at a library and that's the only I like I shelved a book that was about black farmers in Vermont and that was the only time I ever interacted with the black history of Vermonters and for me what that shows is that ethnic studies is sort of a it's the responsibility is placed on the student in Vermont and that's not necessarily that that's not the most effective way of bringing about an educated populace. So when you're with your teachers let's say history teacher do you ever as a student say I would like to discuss the black history of farming in Vermont or the Abnakis or whatever or does that conversation not exist in your in your class? Well it doesn't really exist in our classes. So you have no conversation about what is going to be taught or what could be discussed if it were appropriate. Can I have one more follow-up? Yeah sure. You've been to a number of schools. Can you say where where you've been? I personally I grew up in Brooklyn New York and so I went through the education system there for quite some time and then I went to U32 for a bit. Where is it? U32. In Brooklyn yes I'm not sure there's a community more diverse in the United States of America than in Brooklyn you came here with a whole different attitude and idea of what not to expect or what to expect in terms of your education and your fellow students. Were you in a private school in Brooklyn? A mixture of private and then public. I think it was just I was it was a culture shock the transition but I was surprised at a certain type of like homogeneity that I was sort of shown but that that isn't necessarily really like the true Vermont and I think that's part of the reason why I've started like becoming really involved in like politics and like racial justice in the first places because I really want to educate others and advocate for diverse populations. You can be heard here where in Brooklyn you were just part of the population so to speak. Makes big difference doesn't it? Great. Thank you. Representative Webb. I'm curious and maybe you can even help on this. I'm curious if you know if there are other states that you think are a real model for bringing in ethnic studies into their curriculum. Well I know that Oregon has and that certain districts in Los Angeles and Connecticut have as well and I don't know exactly how they've implemented it or like the specific details but I know that Vermont can just certainly do the same. Have you talked about this along with your teachers because you know one of the things that somebody commented to me in the ethnic studies bill is that really what we're missing is some requirements that teachers have some experience and some expertise in the topic and in your conversations with your teachers have they said you know I agree with you but I don't have the background I'll have the education to really provide what you're looking for because you know during their time it really was a white Euro century history that everybody was talking about. I think teachers and especially history teachers and English teachers who would be who these standards would be really focused on absolutely have the skill set to provide us with this education because it's more about an understanding that can be done by reading up that can be done by like Matt said picking a book off the shelf at the library it's just that not all students are going to go to the library and pick up a book not all of us are gonna be lucky enough to come across that so with it's it's not like we need necessarily need like new teachers who have like studied like you know ethnic studies in university and have degrees on the subject it's more a matter of like a perspective switch in our classrooms and I think that our teachers are our teachers especially in the Montpellier public school system are so wonderful and so like open to this change it's a matter of like curriculum change I've spoken personally to a couple teachers who after our schools racial justice alliance spoke up about English classrooms and specific but also history classes and social sciences that are not giving especially students of color the background and like the context on their own histories in their own environment and their own lives and the teachers are sort of saying we want to but we're required to teach these texts or but we're required to teach to this end and the implementation of these standards would open up for teachers who are perfectly capable of teaching more it's more of a systemic the way I see it is it's more of a systemic restriction than a restriction that comes from the teachers themselves represent a great answer yes in your classes at Montpellier high school do you guys in your class use a textbook or do you teach you deal without a textbook well on the majority the classes are textbook free the only class the only classes I've really used a textbook and have been like science and math courses and AP us history so in other words the teachers whatever they would like to teach without the textbook to some extent yeah they usually bring in texts from writers of interest or whatever they've encountered and there is some flexibility in what they're able to introduce but not not it's not like whatever goes they still have to match up to certain learning standards thank you have you studied the Holocaust in your school I am right now okay okay I mean I am but I'm taking an online AP European history course so that's sort of outsourced and it's not like the education system of Montpellier a great thing about the Montpellier public school system is that we have opportunities to take such courses but not specifically in Montpellier high school I also moved to Montpellier high school midway through junior year so I don't know if I'm the best person to ask I just to follow up on that did you in the in your course of study did you ever study the history of Nazi Germany in the 30s yes in I started high school in Dar es Salaam Tanzania in an international school and we did a lot of world in sophomore world history we did have a pretty extensive unit on starting with World War one and sort of going through the Weimar Republic 20s Germany and then 30s Germany the rise of the Nazi regime and looking at the just the way the structure of the right Weimar Republic opened the door to certain discourse and then we did do a Holocaust unit through we read Mouse do it's like a graphic novel series so this is this is an interesting conversation so I just listened to a the summer of 27 which it was generally speaking considered sort of like a travel writer but he writes about the summer of 27 and I learned that Lindberg was a Nazi sympathizer I didn't know that I learned that the flux clan ran many city governments and state governments in this country I didn't know that you know nothing I ever had in my high school studies did you understand those kinds of things about US history I'm not quite to that extent there there was like a little bit of touching on like there were some decent that was sort of glossed over as for me I'm currently going through my sophomore year and we started with the Russian Empire in the collapse of like the stars and then we transitioned into like the Weimar Republic and how Nazi Germany sort of germinated and then developed and then we transitioned into the Israel and Palestine conflict so it's a very it's a current application of learning but I think that the reason I like learning what I learn is because there's that I don't just an opportunity to receive an education that like not many students in Vermont might be getting from their high schools and I want that to be something that's more of a that spreads around a bit just curious for the two seniors are you planning anything beyond high school do you have post-secondary education plans or personal plans and curious yeah I I got I'm going to college next year where you going Swarthmore what are you gonna study do you know not really probably probably I'm probably going to do like a double major in a statistics and creative writing I don't know where I'm going but I'm going to college I've got a sort of waiting for the rest of my decisions from colleges but I'm hoping to double major in a combination of English literature theater studies and history some combination of the three so can I just follow up so a question for me is I know I've heard from any students who don't necessarily feel engaged by the curriculum in schools or a public school setting and so I think that's something that we grapple with here is how do we love creativity and for people to get into experiences that are outside of the classroom right so I'm curious do you think there are students who would benefit from this type of process where educators and students are taking a look at their curriculum we're creating curriculum curriculum that's more inclusive of individuals and if so do you think more students would be engaged with that because I really like now I'm a history guy and I'm looking at this stuff and it interests me but it doesn't interest every student do you think this would broaden the appeal of the subject matter I think it would because it would it would focus the education on the students needs and sort of it would make makes I think it would make students feel more involved yeah I mean I love history too I I'm a history nerd so anything about history is fascinating to me but I think what's more engaging than anything else is what I can relate that history to myself so I mean I'm someone with like a huge diversity of like international heritage and one of the coolest things I've ever learned about is learning about Indian history because I have a lot of Indian ancestry and that was like really cool to be like well yeah that was like my family several hundred years ago and like it's that relatability that I think like you know maybe I'm kind of an odd case with like the Indian ancestry and like Swahili ended ancestry but I think for students in general to be seeing how their own heritage is important in history and relevant and those perspectives like we're not just seeing like dare I say the white man's perspective on history we're seeing like had I been alive 400 years ago what would I have thought and that's so powerful and it comes to also like women's history and like everything yeah yeah it's relatable I think education is engaging to students when students are allowed to actually like engage in their learning and it's a mutual process like it's not just being like taught at it's having a conversation if you will and it's being able to reciprocate like putting effort into your education and I know a lot of students that were able to work on changing some of the curriculum at Montpelier High School to an extent and just like introduce new books and when students are I know that we're reading an entirely new book in the class that I'm taking right now because students were able to correct what the teacher had sort of failed to understand because they go through an entirely different perspective as students than a teacher would and there's no way teachers going to know what their students are how their students are receiving the curriculum and their lessons without actually asking the students and I'm listening to students opinions which is why I'm so thankful we're able to be here today but we're reading like a whole new book and I know that that's just something that a lot of students wanted and now it's here so it's not an accident that you're here you're three engage curious determined students to say something to the state legislature what about those kids that you have your classmates in class that sit in the back of the room are disengaged and say you know whatever I'm sure you've heard it and are a lot more interested in who's playing in the football game or when they go hunting or what the what the drinking games are for the weekend how do you how do you think we engage those students better than we are now well I don't know if there are necessarily I feel like there are a lot of kids who appear to feel that way but that they're not necessarily that's not necessarily their entire thought process and if you do get get into conversations with them about history or literature they will generally tend if you if you interact with them on like a human level they will tend to start to acknowledge some of the relevance of the curriculum to their own life I think we have like a huge societal issue for teenagers here which is like way beyond this bill and way beyond like anything that we can comprehend but when you're in a social group where it's really cool to be excited about the work you're doing where it's really cool to like you know say I want to go to a competitive college because I want to be challenged where that's like a relatable and cool thing like we thrive and we all learn more and I think that since I moved to Montpelier like the people I've made friends with and the people I've surrounded myself with have helped me to do that much more so than like freshman and sophomore year when I lived in Darcy long Tanzania and my friend group was totally different and it wasn't so cool to be into learning so I think it all like a lot of the kids that sit in the back and like seem disengaged it's a lot of it is performative like Matt said that might not be actually what they're thinking but we lose potential to engage when we're not encouraged to and like allowed to get excited about learning so I think that's I have no idea how we can start to address that but perhaps just maybe for some kids to see more of themselves in their curriculum and to see like a more well-rounded like we're missing this chunk of our education and to have that chunk filled in maybe we'll grasp it a few more hands that are interested in in learning and interested in things and maybe this bill is a start I think there's a long way to go with like all the social issues that high school kids face I think that a lot of the students that I well a lot of the students that I spoke to express disinterest in learning or seem disinterested in their learning because they believe that education isn't practical like when you speak about hunting and football games it's what's that what they it's what they feel relates to them and it's what they feel is most practical to them and is like in the short term and therefore most important and when I speak about public school like the issue with issues with public school and the status of public school in America a lot of times students feel as if it's pointless and like pointless or not to receive an education but that they like don't truly know what it means almost to an extent and that we just have to work actively to like let students know that education is important and it's not just about conformity and clocking in your hours but that it should be like an interactive and engaging experience and I think that education can change your society and so I think that's a way to get those students that are disinterested involved is to just make it like not even make it seem like a practice like a practical thing but to show that it truly is a really valuable thing to learn so how do you interact with the guidance counselors I mean her seniors aside from the college application process personally not too much yeah I've had a lot of help and like what you're gonna do with your life come June but that's yeah other than that not much for me it's been just like once a year when it's time to schedule my classes so you think you're as needed in career choices perhaps or college choices or just daily life I mean with what's going on in your community what's going on in your school drugs marijuana whatever the case may be I I think there is kind of a level of like needing to increase awareness of certain opportunities one of my friends talks about they feel like there's not really any not not enough of a safety net and like an awareness of like class issues in the Montpelier education system and like financial assistance like being educated about like how to get financial assistance for college is something that I think could be work on just raising awareness go college go where you're gonna go go get the next level and come back we need you so thank you very much we all often get a chance to hear from and we should take more time and effort to hear from students so thank you very much for sharing your thoughts