 Good morning. This is Houseways Names. It is April 7, Thursday. And we are talking to the S2A7 again, continuing our conversations for the last few days. And I am going to turn it over to Anthony. Good morning everyone. So we are going to hear a lot of her and Tony first about her district's experience with the universal income form. And then we are going to jump back into modeling with Julia. Any announcements or questions or anything like that before we get started. Okay. Thank you so much for joining us. I've heard rumor that you all have been working really hard on getting income data from your school members. So, love to hear about that. Absolutely. Thank you for having me. So yes, hi, I'm Carlotta Simons-Parentoni. I'm the principal here at Waits River Valley School, which is in East Corinth, Orange County. We have just about 250 scholars, K to 8. So we consider ourselves a big small school. Yeah. So yes, we are a system, I think all systems, but I can attest to what we're doing that have spent a lot of time to make sure that with universal meals or with provision to that we still acquire the data and family information that we need not only to support our food program but knowing the information for our title funds and grant aspects that we work hard on. So we've spent a lot of time over the last few years really trying to educate the communities and we have two communities who feed into one school. The two communities about what that information is used for. We've tried to move away from the immediate reaction that it's all about income and free and reduced meals, which of course it is. But we've really worked hard to show families that the resources that we have available here come from that data as well. So a big change that we made a couple of years ago that has been phenomenal in our percentages is that about midsummer, I send my welcome my initial welcome letter to families. And in that I only include the household information paperwork with a self address stamped envelope. And that in the end I say this is probably one of the most important documents outside of the emergency contact that we need and we use it for this purpose. And could you get that back to us as soon as possible. In the summer really starting to think about school starting again, especially that the younger population they get really excited to get mail from the school. And so they put it, you know, on that pile of let's get to that right now. And so we get about 85% of our populations paperwork back then. And we say to them, you know, in the, in the fall the start of the school and those of you who are parents of school age youth know the big stack that comes home the first week of school. And how, especially if you have multiple children that how you just want to stamp things, you know, eventually there's so many things to fill out so we really work hard to separate it. So that would be the first thing that they do for us. And then I have the list of who we don't have information from, you know, and then we go through the direct cert list, which, if we match up with that, we can bypass that information and then, you know, it's usually about 10 to 15 families that we work on to reach out to independently. And of course have a few families who continually feel that it's a breach of their personal information and they don't want to contribute it and they, you know, immediately feel that they wouldn't qualify for free meals so that's information we don't need. And we still, you know, work with them but ultimately then it's, you know, their final decision but right now out of 260, excuse me 250 scholars I know there are eight that we don't have information from and actually tonight is our first open house with the communities live in our building and that's on my list if I see them and I have a moment to privately check in with them, you know, just a reminder piece. We found it very, very successful to look at it as information that helps with our funding and as a whole, and try to move the stigmatism away from it's about all about food and private information. I'm sorry go ahead. I was just gonna say your numbers are incredible. And it sounds like you have a really clear process in place, kind of blown away. Well I think to, you know, the longevity piece I this is my 13th year here so I do think that the more relationship based you are with families. The more successful you can be in attaining that so I say that not to say it wouldn't be successful in schools that have a turnover in leadership, but that I really think, excuse me it's very important to determine who has the communication with the families that is the best relationship. So there's some of that work to of looking at it systems wise of who, who here do the families engage with and trust enough that they can call them and have those types of conversations because I have had that where I say to the school counselor you know I think you know you're the one with this one can you try them or sometimes it's a special educator and they they aren't necessarily seeking the information but they're explaining the need and then going from there. We've had a couple of times that we've had, you know, especially with the direct certification list where we've invited families here and we've helped to complete that documentation because some of those pieces seem really big and and they are what they don't seem they are big there are so many steps involved with it, but, but definitely the more personal, you can make it the more dedicated they are to, to keeping that established relationship of communication and such. We're talking about simplifying the form really significantly to make it easier for families. Yes, two things one. Are there sort of pieces that you think are really important that you're dead data that you're getting from that that sort of outside of what the data collection needs are that you would want us, you know, you would want to be maintained and then my other questions. Are you doing this all on paper and then doing the data entry in house. This will be so part two of your question. We, of course, are deeply engaged with infinite campus, you know, and that family data collection for the state and multiple pieces. The goal of the data management team here in the district is that we look at doing more online to hopefully simplify the process for the system needs here particularly we we really focus on the paper and then we enter it. There are many. I mean, we live in a community where access to technology is very limited, you know, and the broadband pieces has just not made its way here. So, it's, it's really necessary for a large percentage of them anyway. So, so yes, we do it on paper, and then we enter it into the system after. For as and I'm sorry I'm mumbling but I think and talk sometime often at the same time but I do think that if we had better internet access for families and more equitable access that we would definitely pursue the online option for families like, you know, most families. Who are technology adept are more than content to do that so I think I don't see that with systems who have that access as being any form of an issue. The paperwork itself simplifying it, you know there's nothing in life that we couldn't use a more simplified process so the it would be wrong of me to say simplifying it wouldn't be great. The change in the format in the forums over the last couple of years has, you know, for our traditional families, you know there was some educational piece there to help them see that it's the same form it's just a, it's the same information is just a different form or different format. And so, if it was to change it would be great to know that ahead and help families you know in the middle of the summer when I do that, that outreach, but I think any information you know this that who qualifies ultimately and who doesn't is the most important information for our grants and and our title funds and such. So, any thing in there that's not necessary, it would be of course great just not to have it, but I'm not aware that I don't think it's a complicated form. So I'm not, I'm not thinking there's something that's asked that's too much or too little. I think it's pretty cut and dry. So go ahead. No, I really appreciate that. Anyone else have any go. Thank you. I'm wondering, thanks a lot. You know, when people send in that envelope, who it goes to and they know that it won't be opened by anybody. And I wonder when you said kids are so excited to have something in the mouth in the school. Is there colorful stuff on the outside of the envelope so they're sure, more sure not to miss it or see packets or pieces drop. So I don't know to really make people open it. Thank you. Well, to be honest, the last couple of years it's included a very special opening day mask to wear to school. So, our hope is to include something more exciting and new for them. But yes, the letter clearly says it actually gets sent to Amy Kramer who is our, you know I say my but it's not it's not my school and she's not mine but it's I'll just use that term my role. Amy is the administrative assistant who works with me. And so it's clearly the envelope is addressed to attention to her, and I clearly stay in my letter that Amy. In fact, I say we may not because we have access universal meals and now are working at provisional to I do say we we may not necessarily even open them, you know we just pile them up and make sure we have which we do open them but that no one's looking at that information. It's not shared with anyone. It goes to Amy and she puts it into the system. And that's the end of it. Unless someone needs to resubmit for a change in their in their life during the year, but the letter itself that the scholars anticipate and the families anticipate is by all means they have a history of knowing that it's a very upbeat positive. You know I miss you and and can't wait and usually I request, you know, some summer artwork that they offer or give that you know let them know where to pick up books that we've made available. And then we've accessed the summer meals program which is for the last two summers which has been a great opportunity to deliver it. House to house door to door versus the onsite. So that's given us a lot of personal connection with families that you know they again they get excited because they're seeing you and then they have mail from you and it's truly, you know that relationship but I hear what you're saying I think that's a piece to the schools. And I think all schools do that they really look at who has that relationship with families that they can talk about those sensitive subjects with that it's a safe conversation and making sure that you pick who those people are. If I had it sent back to classroom teachers. I mean they, the teachers they love them, but it's a new relationship and they don't have, you know they're uncomfortable sharing some of those personal pieces. Now if I did it in December, they would readily send it to the classroom teachers but August is too soon for that. Oh, how did this I probably should know how does the universal meals. Go, you talked about having meals in the summer. How does the universal meals that we're considering work with the summer meals. Well the the summer meals program for the last couple of years has allowed anybody from birth to 18 who lives in the community to access it. So, so that's really expanded our opportunity to provide food to the communities as a whole. We normally communicate with our area high schools because we have high school choice so number of all of our adolescents are attending area high schools. So we just let them know that they're on our list and we're dropping, you know food there. The, but so yes every every human, you know every scholar, every, you know, pre K and high schooler have access to food. But the disease. That's would universal meal fund. We'll have time for universal meals at some point soon. Oh, we're doing the forms. Any other forms. Yeah, anyone else have any forms questions. Yeah. Just comment I appreciate that you call your students scholars. Thank you. It is. I smile this is my 35th year in Vermont public education, not only the last 13 years as an administrator but but yes it is over the years I've people recognize me by that statement. Thank you very much for spending this time with us today and thank you so much for your 35 years of service. Oh, it is the best profession ever. I highly recommend it. Thank you. Take care. Take care. Thank you. Bye. That's colors. Yeah. Julia. You want to join us here. If you can find your way over there. I think I gave you my phone charger like a week ago. Okay, then I'm sure I chucked it away somewhere. Thank you. Okay, great. Thanks. I will find my way. Okay. Julia. Hi, thanks. Good morning. So I think you're doing some modeling for us. Yes, Julia Richter joint fiscal office. I guess it's up to you how you would like me to go about this. There are some updated or new transition models. Following the committee's discussion a couple of days ago that have been posted under my name on the, on the committee page. There's also the updated percentage of students within cost factor categories to include those statewide percentages that was requested also on the committee page. So what would be at the most help like what order would you like me to start? Does anyone have anything they want to cover on the demographics before we sort of go back into transitions. Okay. Great. Then it would love to hear about the three year transitions that you. Okay, sure. Hi. There are two three year transitions that we have modeled here that are posted on the page one is to reflect the same construct that we spoke about a couple of days ago with those two simultaneous transitions of transitioning in the cost factor adjustments and transitioning out the weights. And then there's another transition that moves immediately to ADM. So it does not transition out the weights over a three year five year time period, but goes immediately to ADM, and then transitions in the cost factor adjustments over three years. So, I guess if it makes sense to the, to the committee, I think it makes the most sense to start with the, the, I think people are curious about the immediate. So that seems to be the one that people are the most. Yeah, you go ahead. Well, folks should refresh first of all, if you haven't yet, if you want to find those things on the website. I need to do that myself. Yeah, I just wanted just because it's going to be on my mind so I'll ask it now. Writing column percent change is going to be the same under every one of these. So I don't need to keep checking it. No, so those are all the same. They've been put on there just so that you don't need to be multiple documents. I think it's good and I think it's an important point. This is just a question of how quickly we get there not where we get. Yes. So thank you for that. So if you open up table C. And the letters are arbitrary is just so that it's easy for us to keep track of what cable we're talking about. So if you open up the table C. As chair and so just noted a lot of the numbers and things that you're seeing here are really the same as what we were looking at a couple of days ago. What we're really looking at is those differences in the rates over the year over the transition years. So just to briefly remind the committee looking at this table and in the two left columns we've got county and then the school district. And the next column that's titled FY 2020 adjusted rate. This is sort of the base rate. So what we're comparing it to and per the committee suggestions there are the assumptions there at the bottom that talk about how these adjusted rates were calculated. I have a question. I'm just I got lost in the words. I don't see the difference in labeling between table C and table B in the title of it. What, which one. How are they different. So table table C says transition into cost factor adjustments assuming constant spending. And that's what table B says. Those, those titles are the same because they represent different transitions. There's table B, which is falls above that and table C what falls above that those titles are the same because I know which ones were underneath it says transition overview and that describes what the transition is happening. I'm just happy to adjust the title if that would be what was happening in over three years. I'm just trying to understand how they're different table C drops goes from Julia to sorry, you can answer. So, so table B is the simultaneous transitions. So that's phasing out of the weights over time. Okay, correct. So that's phasing out the weights over time and facing in the ADM facing in the cost factor adjustments whereas table C is moving immediately to the ADM. So it's not phasing out the weights. Does anyone. Yeah, any sort of that basic frame. Yes, you had your. Yeah, so table B would probably should relabel them so that people can actually find them but table B is the phasing in and phasing out table C is just phasing in. Correct. Okay, I like to think of table C as less confusing. Let's move in parts. That's much better. Thank you, Scott. Chris, did you have something before. I'm just curious, like, the numbers are all the same. The end point is the same. So, so, can I take a step back and just please do. Okay, so there's three tables under my name. So one of those tables follow a similar follow the transition that we spoke about a couple days ago, right with with the two simultaneous transition. One is over five years, which is what we spoke about. One is new to the committee but the only difference in that construct is instead of it being over five years, it's now over three years. And that's B and that's B. The only reason that that is being presented to the committee today is so that you can more easily compare different scenarios to each other. So table A and table B follow the same construct in terms of those two simultaneous transitions. So table B and table C are both over three years, but differ in terms of how they're getting from the beginning to the end. So there are going to be, as you just mentioned, a lot of the same numbers because we're using in all of these transitions, the same base rate, and we're ending up with the same final rate. So it's going to be the same dollar change, the same percentage change when you're going from start to finish. The only difference that we're looking at in all of these different tables is how we get from beginning to end. Okay. So, so, and I'm happy to retitle these if that would be helpful. I have to so people won't know which one they're looking at, but yeah. I can do that. So, so table C to be clear. That is a new transition compared to what we spoke about a couple of days ago. It's a new transition. It's not phasing out the pupil weights over three years or over five years. It's saying, okay, we're going to get rid of the people weights completely, and we're going to go immediately to long term average daily membership. We're also going to phase in the cost factor adjustments over three years. That's what you're seeing here in table three, moving immediately out of people weights and then phasing in the cost factor adjustments over three years. When so when we say phasing in cost factor adjustments, I want to just be sure I understand what that, what that means. So we don't use cost factor adjustments now. We, and we're, we're not so we're no longer using weights and we're no longer using old weights. I guess that's sort of follows, but what do we mean by phasing in. So, so in. So, so in when when I'm referring to phasing in that's an even proportion increase in the cost factor adjustment amount over the certain amount of years that the committee would decide they wanted to do the transition so in this case we have a three year transition. So that means in year one districts are going to be receiving one third of the cost factor adjustments that would be calculated for them. Year two, it would be two thirds near three would be three thirds are all of the cost factor adjustments. You, you could also do this over more years, it would just be a difference in terms of that proportionate change by the number of years that you chose to transition into the new system. Okay. Yeah, so, um, in that model, or whatever it is, is the old system, when you down while the newer system system winding up as we discussed previously. So that's, that's that construct is being modeled in table B. Okay. Well I have a question. Maybe it's particularly not for this one. Okay. Um, so table C Julia when you any other questions about sort of the construct for table safe. Julie when you look at it what do you see here. I did some scanning but I would imagine your eyes are scanning more effectively. So, so a couple of things that I noticed when looking at table C in comparison to other transition constructs that we've looked at as a committee. We looked at, is that in some districts, the base rate may go up and then down. So, a peak. So, but the base rates, the same, but then correct. Right. So, and so when moving from the base to the end, even if in the, in the end it's going to be moving down in some districts, you will see that it's going first up, and then down past where it was originally. Yeah. We're in C right now. So, you, you also see Randall Hancock, which is number three and Addison starts at 166. In the base year that it's going to go up to 186 for and then back down to one. Those are like. That's my, that's what I'm trying to get my head around so it's, you know, how many decimal points do we go out for this to be for this. I mean, looking at scanning through that, I think the theme is, is that the districts that do experience the focusing effect are districts that have I call. You're going to slip that one. I used to be a marine biologist. They seem to occur in districts that in the end are going to experience a very small, or, you know, change over. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And the differences are, they're small. The most part. Any word where it isn't used up for the most part. I'm not sure you could pick out some that are some that are but but generally speaking, if a district is experiencing a very small change. They're more likely to experience this effect. Districts that are receiving big changes. I want to let you sort of find out any other so is there anywhere that it's sort of more than one decimal point that we're talking about with the purpose. I haven't. I would have to go back and check. I haven't gone through every district or I have but I don't have that in front of me. That was just the thing I wanted to point out. There are some. There are some examples for instance, I'm looking at bellows falls and wind on the first district the base rate is $1 652 and then it goes up to 1811 and then back down to 1799 so as you mentioned, I mean, those are small changes. But there are some more dramatic changes within that year so it's not going to be. For instance, in bellows falls it's a penny and a half going up in year one. I know. No, it's not 1570. Oh, thank you. Yeah. I'm just looking at comparing B and C. And it doesn't seem that C. Table B and C not column B and C right. That's right. Table C. Yes. The yields in table B pretty much go down by the same amount every year, you know, within within a couple. As the yields in table C, go down by a steeper amount each year. And, and I think that's because in year one, you've just, you've gotten rid of any waiting, and you only put in a third of the cost equity factor so basically the state doing less adjustment. I've done before in year one. What that means for like say district like Granville Hancock to open up, they're making their full, you know, they've got an 18 cent adjustment to make. They're making a 20 cent adjustment in the first year, and then they're basically just staying flat on, you know, it's taking down very slightly from, from 1.264 to 1.844 or two years but their initial jump is huge 20 cent jump so it's like, I would say that C seems again to sort of have some additional volatility to it and especially the fact that some districts, instead, they see the whole, like in the case of Granville they really see their whole change in one year. And so that is a real difference of C is compared to, to be where we still have this kind of feathering out of one system and feathering into the other, whereas this is feathering at one and just like, not in the other off the table it's fairly, that's a relatively big difference. A couple points with respect to that, I think, if we decide that one of, so I like the, the single system of the dual system, because I think it's simpler in not running two systems, if we can't make it work we can't make it work but if one way of making it work is to identify the outliers and figure out a solution for them, not necessarily have the same thing applied to everybody, but the other thing I was going to ask is, and this is for the math people in the room is, given the fact that we're using data that's out of date, how many decimal points should we be running these out, because it, when people look at them they start thinking that there's a significant difference when the difference is really, you know, in the, in the second or third decimal point and it doesn't seem like we're using old data doesn't seem like it's really not ours just don't feel valid enough to me so so if people who know more about this stuff than I do can offer an opinion on how many decimal points we should be using let's make a decision about that. Related comment, I think. Given that we acknowledge we're using old data, process standing what we don't have that sort of stuff. The one concern I have about focusing effect is districts where there's more radical change that are trying to adjust their budgets on a year by year basis to get from, you know, year one year three or whatever it is. So much, it's worthwhile driving a nuts, but it is great, just full field terms you know terminology. And I'd like to avoid that, the purpose in fact if we can for those where the transition is really pretty dramatic. And so just leave that as a comment and we'll see how we get there. I think it's a great point, especially because as you mentioned we are working with all of these assumptions and we are working with our data data so it really, as you mentioned to handle it doesn't make sense to compare down to the penny because at the end of the day, it's not going to be down to the penny right so I think that a question, a policy question for the committee maybe where would it be where would you like us to highlight. Or, or highlight where changes are are greater than a certain threshold for you to be able to see you know which districts have a change that's greater than X percent that could be a way for the committee to throughout their heads around you know where are the big changes happening. So, I think there was a chart at one point that dropped out some of the districts and the problem with that isn't that people want to know why and what's behind it. I think that my thought would be what cannot knowing that this is a valid way to do it is to have fewer and more ramping than we're doing. I'm not sure exactly where but do more ramping, and then color code, you know, have have read for one group green for another group or blue and yellow and whatever, and then have the others that are hovering right around that 5% plus or minus or whatever we want to choose just be not highlighted. And so that so that people can at least cast their eye on it but I think there's a problem in hiding the figures because people are going to wonder what they are. I'd love to people want to see a lot of people want to see and I would love it. I would also sort of tune into the decimal point conversation. Scott, David. Jim. Caleb. Yeah, I vote for two decimal points. Okay, and I think maybe just for that Julia could just like, I don't know use a color yellow whatever. Identify all of the districts that actually experienced. I don't know if you can just add it in parent down to the most dramatic ones or whatever. Sure, we can definitely do that. I guess my other question would be, if you do want some of these highlighted, it would, you would need to determine a percentage, I know that 5% has been referenced we could do any, any percent. I would say for first cut, like, which districts go up and then down or go down and then this will start there and see what those look like. I'm guessing there's probably a dozen maybe. Yeah. David. Okay, Jim. Yeah. I'm going to put a little bit of a slant, but I'll just put it out there because I'm curious how this figures in is, if we go on the weights over three years and excuse me to costs over three years and then district or don't consider weights. What do we do about the school systems like Francis North, I keep putting this up. I'm just going to say where did our weights go. I just need to understand how the transition works that I truly don't get it if the place aren't facing out for all the costs are faced. So across the actors, I guess, and I just, I'm trying to this a little bit, because I don't see. We have to put them. Sorry. See together and look at them. I did the few districts as my hand here, and they're not very good changes. Differences are not traumatic. They're tiny, but I just pulled out random. If that's correct, then my fears may be a stage. Caleb and then Brad and then. There's some pretty big changes between B and C. If you look at Burlington, Burlington has got the biggest change almost any, a lot of this growing to a big change that costs just back. Of course, bigger changing with how other weights, but that's that's a different conversation. Burlington goes from 1.48 on table C to only 1.45 so they're getting almost none of their benefit in the first year on their table C under table B. It's significantly different they go from 1.48 to 1.39 so they do get approximately one third of their fault transition. There's just a lot, there's a lot of people because you're just getting rid of weights entirely not much happens in year one in table C. Winooski for example, like they've got 41 cents to drop. So a third should be with 1314% instead they drop 6% and then they drop 35% the next year. That's pretty uneven. And then they're done, of course, because they're got 1% that can't drop anymore. But if you again look at Winooski on table C, you're going to see, you know, basically it's going to split the difference a little bit more. They're going to lose 19 cents and then 22 cents. So at least the 41 that they're losing they're doing in two relatively even chunks instead of 6%. So I do think that like the dropping of the weights entirely. It just means that like this is a three year transition that it's not. I think we do a three year transition would really be nice to see like tax rates adjusted relatively evenly those three tranches or three chunks as opposed to 90% of your change in one year, which I'm just seeing a lot table C. I mean, I think it's going to be helpful for me to have you sort of add more detail on layers to this Julia because I, you know, 90% in one year. I can't run that math in my head as I'm sort of scanning between these two. And so having some more sort of definition to the scale of the change in each year would be helpful. And just the highlights that Emily was point out is the yields and just go to the top line yields. Yeah, you've got a reduction of 855 from base to year one. By the time you go from year two to year three you've got a reduction of 1400. So it's not a factor of two, but it's probably 1.8. And so that's just like, it also points to that same effect that year. If you look at table B, you've got a reduction of the yield of 1200 1200 pretty much. You've got 855 1250 1450, you know, so it's that that kind of points to the, to the problem or just at the yield or or at least the shape of this transition I don't know what's wrong, but it's not. Yeah, and then Brad. Well, I think what Caleb is saying sort of underscores to me that what we need is we need to need to look at enough data so that we can identify the areas where we have concerns and if they're small enough to address, you know, sort of ad hoc individually will do that and if it's through everything then that tells us we, you know, we've got a bigger problem. We need to do some slicing a dice and Brad. Come on. Here we go. Am I there. Okay, Brad James H2 education this is kind of just going back to what representative back said and what the initial discussion was about the numbers of decimal points shown. And again, it doesn't matter you guys kind of gone but the only reason we're showing three is what I said the other day is some districts are going to when you round to two are going to show a zero zero. And the example that I saw on Julius. And I think was Ira in Rutland County, they they're point zero zero two and it will just shows as point zero zero which is fine. But I, but I do agree that probably showing two decimal places better than showing. And that's, you know, the rest of it I'll let you guys discuss them. Brad, I think I've asked you this before but when we're sort of looking at effects that we think might still have a reasonable magnitude in two years, giving, you know, with new current year data, what, what magnitude seems sort of reasonable to you and what seems to me to be lost in the noise of all the other changes. We've been playing with 5%, but again, I'm still not, you know, sure. I think I before I answer that question, let me take a little look at some more data and just see what kind of a normal changes or what some of the extremes changed have been in the past, say three or four years, because I have not done that anytime recently I don't remember what I did in the past so I'll take a look at that get back to you on that. Yeah, Brad, this may be a question for you. I'm sure you heard Caleb suggested it'll be nice that the transition say in Burlington or any place could happen in even trances over three years or something like that. I'm sure Julia is called an internet model, which is really helpful to see what it'd be possible for the for the agency to your back office construct a formula, so that you get a beginning point and an end point and you know, tax rates end up changing roughly equal amounts over three years. Well, I think part of the problem is that we have no idea what the end point is exactly we don't know what the end point is. Thank you. We're assuming the spending at the end point is the same as the spending at the beginning. Thank you. Thank you. I don't know if this is the right question to ask but as you as the, the rates goes down. If a district says well I'm going to use that difference to improve educational equality for students and the spending actually goes to the total amount that the rate has gone down. Then what would that do and let's just say everybody spent up to that amount that they would be otherwise saving. And then others study. They keep their tax rates where they are. Yeah, thank you. They keep it and let's say that the others who, who would otherwise have a choice between lowering tax, raising tax rates or for cutting spending, all the five well we're going to raise tax rates. What would happen to the yield in those years in the last year. Julia. It would still go down. And then when the yield goes down, what happens when the yield goes down tax rates go up. So everybody would pay for the increase in spending afforded the people who, especially the people for whom they're getting more money to spend on kids. So that's the system. Yeah, so how does that overall impact education spending. Overall, do we end up spending more overall. I'm trying to get it what this does to I mean the question I heard you ask is if the districts that are getting a tax cut decide to spend more with that tax cut and not a tax cut. If they spend more, and if the districts that are getting a tax increase, but want to maintain their budgets, then spending goes up for the whole state and everything I mean spending goes, spending goes up spending goes up. That's the, I mean you answered your own question. Yeah, we don't know. Yeah, I know but let's say that that's what if we did model it and say okay let's one hypothetical is that it goes up. Then how much more in by year for would we as a state be spending on education. I think the question we would need to answer to model people spending more is how much more people would spend and I don't know how we would ever need to know what's going to happen. What's going to happen to tax revenue what's going to happen to the number of kids in the school what's going to happen to inflation. You know, there's a whole lot of other things going on and if you, if you, if you run, just have one dynamic factor and everything else is static you, you know, all right. That's what I said I don't know what I'm trying to ask a question. It's a great question. It's a good question. Yeah, education spending goes up by 9 million. Yeah, then the rates go up by one. That gives you a framework. That's it and that's unless sales tax revenue. That's true. I mean, it's an underlying consumption tax explodes and that should change that. Julie, do you want anything before David, I guess I would just like to reiterate what, what the committee has been saying in with respect to the reason that we hold all of these things constant and are only changing one aspect is so that we can see what a change in that one aspect is really going to look like so when you the more assumptions that you layer in that are changing the base. The more difficult it is to attribute this change. What does that look like versus what does this change look like, which is why we're assuming all of these constants and then just putting in the new system and looking at it and as, as the committee has said, if, if your scenario where to happen education spending would increase. But the same would hold true it in the current system where districts that decide to spend more money, more education spending for equalized people that also corresponds with an increase in education spending. So we really, we, it's incredibly difficult. It's modeling an increase in education spending from my perspective as just looking at the numbers. It really wouldn't tell us anything because we would also have to assume you know within each district, how is each district. And, and just just assuming within each district education spending would change is just, it's an interesting, it's an interesting question I wish I had a more satisfying answer. I mean, but I heard you also say really clearly this we have this exact same problem and the exact same dynamics with weights or cost factors it's the, you know, spending goes up spending. David, and then Caleb. I have two questions. One is whether you think there's a better approach that we haven't thought of yet. And I'm just gonna put that out there maybe you don't have that right now. But yeah, no, when we were talking about this the other day walking through the, the bill I think for the first time. I had some conversation about averages of averages, meaning where we were looking back for calculating ADM I think we were looking back at, at two years, you know, of enrollment and then. And so, and I'm a little confused now and my little fuzzy on what exactly that was but I just want to be sure that in year one. I'm either track B or track C. Are we is the calculation looking back to previous years that that FY 18 FY 19 that may be skewing the these calculations somewhat. So, if I understand the question, we're using all of this adjusted FY 2020 data, the Senate, the S 287 that passed the Senate, the transition mechanism that was presented there was averaging the multiple years so from 2016 through FY 20 and then moving forward with those flowing averages, so to speak, over time, that's not being that's not included in these models. Okay. And is that because we made a collective decision or you thought we had not to do that or is that a function of the calculation that you can't do that. That's because what we've been asked to model it's really at the end of the day up to the committee to decide what what makes sense during this transition. Yeah. Okay. Good. Thank you. That's helpful. I just want to be sure that we weren't doing doing that. Jump in. I know Julie Julie got it I was just going to say it's two completely different models that we're talking about the weighting model the transition was based on averaging equalized pupils over over a period of years and that's the average of the average that I was speaking about. When we're talking about the cost factor model which is in front of you. We're, we're the way we're talking about it now is the transition would go to two options the transition will go from one year of equalized pupils to long term ADM, you know, over over time, or going straight to a long term ADM and then, and in both case in both those scenarios averaging are parsing out are phasing in the the kind of the cost factor adjustment grants. So, so that's that's really it's just two different concepts the averaging of the average is on the weighting side as proposed from the Senate. Thank you. Yeah, and I mean, that to me is a little, a little unfortunate that I don't think we really looked at the Senate bill much we kind of amended it to this new draft request and that's really what we put that and the thing about that is that we haven't seen this kind of transition numbers. I don't feel like we have for the Senate version of we saw one chart from Brad we haven't spent that much time on it. We have talked a little bit about the differences between the versions but it's just that we waited for a long time to get us to 87 we immediately did a draft request that completely flipped it with limited testimony so what we're really hearing about a lot is that cost factor justice but we're not hearing much about how it compares to s.287. They do have like some different mechanisms. But if we're talking about the notion that there's so much new stuff coming that we're kind of just guessing which I continue to hear. There's more guessing I think when we're looking at cost factor justice, because you've got the whole change to the yield you've got the whole change to what counts as education spending. So in addition to just saying okay well we've got a problem with our old old weights, we're going to fix them by just like axing the whole program and substituting a new thing that is inherently harder to model. There are challenges with modeling replacing weights, but I think it's significantly more unknowns that are introduced. And again it's like the yields kind of tell the story. If you look at the transition under new weights of course the else bounce around but not nearly to the degree that they plummeted this fall. And that we've got a lot of policy decisions about how we set the yield that would be fundamentally impacted by going this direction. And I don't think we fully tease those out yet so it just like, I think the kind of guesswork long term feels greater in this model and it would be kind of nice to at some point, you'll go back side by side it with the Senate's decision since I think they looked at a lot of these same factors and coming to that conclusion. And I'm remembering right that. I've looked at a lot of tables in the last month but I'm remembering right that the when we got the Senate bill we looked at both the model from Brad that he sort of introduced the Senate and then we also looked at some side by sides. Yes. We have we have done that I would be happy to walk the committee through that again if it would be helpful. Yeah, briefly about the yield. Yeah, because this is something that I was thinking when we're trying to understand the two different systems. Think about the calculation of the yield. It's important to know, and this is something that that I think I briefly touched on the introduction to cost factor adjustments but because because factor adjustments are being sort of taken out from the schools voted the districts voted budget. It's going to be an education spending per people is calculated. It means that a districts with the cost factor adjustments and districts education spending per people that's being used to calculate its is going to be assuming all else content is going to be lower. Because those cost factor adjustments are not included in the education spending per people that's being used to calculate the adjusted rate. So for that reason, the yield in turn, also needs to decrease, not necessarily because it's it's in the same. It needs to decrease because because assuming all its constant right that education spending per people within the district is also going to decrease so the yield needs to decrease to reflect that new or that change in calculation. Just to clarify, I don't know if I've mentioned that in terms of the table that I presented here so I think that's just helpful to clarify. And let's go. And just the next step I think is the reason is that the yield has to raise that money that's going out in the cost factor that that's its function. And so that's the end of play here. Thank you. Yeah, I'm just trying to go back to David's question of, is there a different way of doing this maybe we're not thinking of. You know, a two year transition would eliminate a lot of this, I'm welcome to fact that we're seeing and see. So what I've just banned just do it. So I'm wondering if maybe a two year transition, or just a full implementation with some throttles for certain districts might actually be a model that might make more sense. Don't give Jim a heart attack. I want to make sure that word throttles. And let's not forget, I think I think I think I'm currently saying this. We are not talking about the first year of implementation until 25. So that, you know, nothing's going to happen at 24 but it does give the district some time to start getting on the ramp. Carol. I'm glad you said that what you just said, Julia. We'll go down so when I and I heard you Scott say what, what nine million costs any. Do we have the church that show where in the state. Where money comes from, like who is most was putting money in from what I know we have the circle of property taxes and sales tax. But I mean, when it's coming in. Where's it coming in from. Yeah, so, so, because of the, because of the, the, the way that the system has been adjusted since the briefing decision, the money that's coming into the education fund is not a tax rate is not a function of the town's property well, but rather the district, the education spending for people that that district has decided on. I guess I guess I would offer to that. Scott's favorite orange is a very good source for answering questions. So it is. And we have it in the past, there's not so much this year talked about all the things that go into the ad fund and the different proportions and a third a third a third, you know, third non homestead a third homestead income and a third non property tax shifts a little bit but it's roughly that. But basically the property tax money, the education tax money comes in from people have been coming at property, wherever they live. That's that's what that's the way the system is supposed to work. If you've got more people with more money and one part of the state they're paying more in on income tax, no matter what. Yeah, so it's almost the more people in a place. The more there is the contribution to not get a disproportionate contribution is just that aggregate numbers are bigger. It's not disproportionate. All right. A couple different comments from this conversation last little bit. I appreciate Caleb saying that using say unfamiliar numbers. In exact numbers has poses poses some, some hearing difficulties, but I would also say the system that we've been operating under for any number of years it's been not complicated. And I think into weights straightens that out to the greatest extent that we can do that within the context of what we're working on tip. And that my train. I have no objection. I have no problem with the fact that you can only change one factor. One of the basic rules that I learned the hard way from auto mechanics is if there's something wrong with your car, you only change one part of time. Otherwise, so, so these models models as we kind of work our way forward but at the end of the end of the day school. School districts will work school boards, they work with, you know, the numbers that we finalize, you know, the system turns out to be and work with tax rates, and if you do it all at once Scott versus, you know, over a couple of years. I had some considerations on that score. The throttles that's the throttle, you know, the guardrails, you know, we've talked about some things to start through but but I just assume, end up with a better system than adding some letters to it. It's not the best system at all. Anyway, so this is why I like wait. Transition will be on. Anyway, so that's not probably my table. You mean you, you like table B rather than table C, or you like that when you say you like wait, you say you like the, I like cost action. Okay. You know, with the math over a couple of years or something to be decided. I'm not inherently opposed to, you know, three years two years. I think it's almost 1015 so I think we're going to take a break until 1030. Sorry, George. Thanks so much to settle in.