 Welcome. This is the Education Committee in the Vermont House of Representatives on Wednesday, May 19th, and we are looking at H106, which is on the notice calendar today back from the Senate, and Jim Damare is going to walk us through the changes using a side-by-side. So thank you, Jim Damare. Okay, good morning. For the record, Jim Damare, that's Consul. We are walking through the side-by-side of H106 as passed by the House versus as passed by the Senate. House is on the left side, Senate's on the right side. Difference is growing in yellow. So I won't focus on, like they put in re-assistance, you'll see here, I won't focus on those small changes, but so they've got changes to the findings. So you can see here that they've expanded your finding number one. So their version of it will read, every child should be provided with an equitable education as defined by the agency of education as access to the resources, opportunities, and educational rigor they need at the right moment in their education, wherever their race, gender, identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, language, disability, family background, or family income may be. And then they go on to just modify your language, but every child should be able to grow up with the opportunity to choose their dreams. And then it says, our public schools must be designed and equipped to fully deliver on that promise. So kind of an expand version of what you have here on the left hand side. So that's the first difference to point out. Then two, it's the same as if they've added language at the end. So this is talking about low income students and the result of challenges from that. They're kept in your language, but then they say recognizing that students need fresh and additional foods to enable them to focus on education. And that many students come from school hungry, providing universal school meals offered no cost to students or their families advances their goals that community school programs seek to achieve. So they're tying in the food program language in this for all two community schools, basically. Three is similar. They have a different language language after families. So you have such a substance misuse lack of stable housing, inadequate medical and dental care, hunger, trauma, exposure to violence. So students can do their best. They have and build on the assets they bring to their schools and communities. Community schools combine challenging and culturally inclusive learning opportunities with the academic and social support every student needs to reach their potential. So some differences there. Four, they've added language to four. So this four is about the pillars. And they're basically adding in a fifth pillar. So four, as you have it, identifies the four pillars. And they do the same thing when they add on that research additional supports the necessity of safe, inclusive and equal learning environments to reinforce student success and wellbeing. These almost do not function independently, but are a part of a unified and interconnected approach. And you'll see that this safe, inclusive and equal learning environments is now an additional additional pillar to the definition of community school programs, which we'll come on to. Five is similar. They've got some differences here. So you've got language. So this is research about improving the variety of student outcomes. And so you're saying including attendance, academic achievement, including racial, reducing racial and economic achievement gaps. They've got similar language, but can we do all improvements in variety of student and family outcomes, including attendance, academic achievement, achievement, reducing systematic racial and economic injustice etc. So similar, but somewhat different. Six is the same. Seven is the same, except they add language to the end. So seven is talking about the pandemic and that community schools are one of 10 recommended strategies for recovery. And they wanted to say these schools at their core are about investing in children through quality teaching, challenging, engaging, and culturally responsive curricula, reference, support, safe, and for climate. So it ties the family and community and their clear focus on student achievement and wellbeing. They add a new eight, which says that community centers are important centers for building community connections and resilience when learning, learning a sense beyond the walls to the schools through active engagement with community partners as with place based on relationships expand and deepen community strengths and strengths are highlighted opportunities for building vitality services through short line. Nine is the same. This is looking at programs in various urban and rural areas. So that is the same. They've added 10, which connects to literacy now. So it says recognizing literacy proficiency is a foundational learning skill. Community schools can advance the state goal of improving literacy for all students in the state. Achieving the school will require a multi year and multi dimensional effort. According to you focus by the joint assembly, the menstruation school leaders in community schools are an important component of the effort. You can see some of the slide which is far from 114 purpose. So you've got that this law is not to support a demonstration grant program for the implementation of community school programs to provide students with equal access. They've got this app provides funding for the implementation of community school programs to provide students with same and then creates a task force to differences there. It's referencing the task force. It's also on the gateway from this grant language. So their version does not have a grant program. It permits the AOE to issue funding as it deems appropriate, but not necessarily through a grant application. And then the task force university school lunch has been added to their version, not in your version. And what the purpose should say and it's missing one thing is that the other thing this bill on their side does is put in the front of the school language. And that really should have been put in the purpose. But it's not there. Okay. So going on to the funding. So again, you've got a grant program, they've got a funding program. The definition of community school coordinator, I believe is the same. Community school programs, again, you've got four pillars that are the fifth. So they've got five pillars. And they've added a bunch of language into definitions here. So it goes through all of the spots we through the other language to be a sense of what they've added here. The first pillar, which is integrated student supports, they're adding languages and include what young people bring to them to the classroom and the ways that schools and communities work together that can can enhance embrace the knowledge and capacity of students and families can offer their schools. This could include educational strategies like universal design for learning, recognition and respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, and practices that focus on building and supporting relations to sort of practices. They've added, I can't recall. I'm sorry. Voices for months, children. All right. Okay. And then the expanded English learning time opportunities they want to have back during the school day as well. That's been added there. Active family community engagement. So let's just see because you've got a May and they've got a shell. So they've added whereas all students and their families feel a sense of belonging and engagement. And they say this shall include a broad student and community participation with a diversity of income, race, gender, newcomer, staff, language and ability represented in the design implementation and evaluation of activities that is embraced by the leaders and decision makers in schools and communities. You have come up with a language hub. So hub is a common jumping out point here. So you've got your hub providing adults with a facility to access educational opportunities they want, which may include going to services outside, providers, staff for English, et cetera. So actually, yeah, they've got, sorry. Your May is the same as their May because their May is down here on the next page. So it's not, they're not changing your May. So shall their adding language around broad student participation. So and then they say this also provides us with the facility to access educational opportunities they want, which shall include access evidence to literacy instruction that ties back to the finding the literacy and may include and that comes up to here and may include on your side. So that's the same. Representative Austin. Yes. Yes. Today in the list of qualities of the inclusiveness, do they have people with handicapping conditions? Are you looking at this? Maybe on page nine. I don't see it here on page back up. You know, it was like about gender, social, you know, economic. It was just a list of different. Yeah. I sound below. We went through that. Wasn't there was looking higher. No, it's not. So I think you're referring to as a list that is here. And this language here. Right, right. So is there a handicapping condition in there? I think it's in this language. I think it should be. And the amendments to this will mean that the bill fails this year. Okay, so we'll leave out handicapped. We can go ahead and amend it, but then it will sit on the calendar. It will. It will mean that any further. We're out of time. If we amend it, then there are some amendments I would love to do. If we amend it, it will go over to the Senate. No, I don't want to hold up. It's just disappointing to me that it's not in there, but I won't amend it. I won't hold this bill up. Okay, go ahead, Jim. The next pillar is clever leadership and practices. They've added some language here. So this is about, of course, clever leadership and practices, and it's including a bunch of stuff here. And you've got on your left side and include a community school coordinator and a rep families in the community. It may include school districts and other leadership governance teams. They've got and include a community school coordinator and an integrated school and community leadership team that include youth and family reps and may include other leadership governance teams. I think that the means very different, but the words are definitely different. Larry, can you take over for a minute? Thank you. Go ahead, Jim. I see James is raised a hand. Okay. Oh, I didn't see that. Representative James. Yeah, thanks. I just wanted to toss in a comment on the site-based leadership team. It was in the original as introduced by the House Bill, and it's an important sort of component in making sure that you've got kind of broad engagement in planning the community schools program. And I just wanted to kind of reassure folks about that. I checked in with Jane Nichols, and the way it's worded doesn't raise any flags for them. So that was an addition I thought folks might want to hear a little bit more about because anyway, that's that. And then either added as a fifth pillar. So the fifth pillar is safe, inclusive and equal learning environments. They've taken out the demonstration grant definition, because again, this is not a grant program on their side, some applications required. They've expanded the definition of eligible applicant. You've got either a school district with an eligible school or SU with an eligible school. There's this recipient in the applicant because again, there's no application for grant. It's just recipient of the funding. And they've got same A and B. So as you then they've added C, which is two or more school districts, east with one more eligible schools, C to work collaboratively to revoke community school programs. And they've added D, which is two or more SUs during the same thing. So they allow combinations of districts and SUs to work together. All of the school is the same site-based leadership team. They've added this definition over here, which reads means an interdisciplinary, interdisciplinary, I can't pronounce it right. We can see it school-based leadership team that may include the school principal, the community school coordinator, teachers, and other school employees, students, families, community partners, nonprofit organizations, unions, and neighboring community residents that support, that supports collaborative planning implementation oversight of community school programs by the Osborne recipient. And then the funding authorization is different because they again, it's a funding not grant. And it just says the secretary is authorized to provide funding for a period of three years to an Osborne recipient to use as required under subsection D, which is the uses of the fund provision. So therefore, they take out your one to this being done under their sub D. But note that you had grants of up to 110,000 per eligible applicant. They've left that completely open. So they left the secretary of education to determine how much to fund each recipient. So they've given more discretion to the agency than you have on your side. Funding administration, they've got that the secretary are determined using the agency education's equity lens tool, which recipients should receive funding, and the amount of funding. And then that was subject to subject to which requires collaboration. So just go there for a minute before going back up. So in making that determination about who gets the money and how much they get, they have to work, the AOE has to work to advance the principles of Vermont's trauma informed system of care, and has to collaborate with the director of trauma prevention and resilience development in the Vermont child and family trauma working group. So that's what this reference to subject to subject to means. And then going back down to their left here on their side, in determining which eligible recipients should receive funding, the secretary should take into account relative need based on the extent to which community school program services are needed and the extent to which eligible recipients seeks to offer them. So they've got that approach which is much more kind of open-ended and has collaboration with the trauma prevention folks. Your side had a statutory mission to grant program on its own in determining the amounts. So kind of a different approach here in terms of breadth and collaboration, I would say. And then we go to just a small change here, eligible recipients, because it could be a combination of two or more SUs or two more school districts as well. And they put in that AOE should inform everyone, but for those eligible recipients most in need of this funding, they should also educate them what these programs do and their other benefits. Use of funding is not really different, but a lot of different language here because they've expanded quite a bit for what you have. So let's just go through their version of it for a moment because I think in substance it's similar. So their version says they're simply outfunding under this actually use of funding too. So they say if a needs and assets assessment has not been conducted within the prior three years that substantially conforms with the requirements of this subdivision, then in collaboration with the site-based leadership team, conduct the needs and asset-based assessment that includes. So in the first year, if you haven't done a needs and asset-based assessment within the last three years, then the first year of funding, you do that assessment, assessment in the last three years, then you can just go on to implement. And the needs and asset-based assessment has a bunch of requirements here, one, two, three, four, five, six. All of these are requirements are not on your side. And they came from your original bill, actually. They were brought over, NEA asked the slimes to be brought over from your H26 as you've seen this language before. And it says that the needs and asset assessment must include where available and where applicable, student demographic, academic achievement, and school climate data, distributed by major demographic groups, including race, ethnicity, language proficiency, students with IEPs, and students who are for family use, for lunch, staff, has to include access to needs for integrated student supports, access to a need for expanding and rich learning time and opportunities, school funding information, local, private education funding, information on the number of qualifications and stability of school staff, active family community engagement information, including these factors below. So, need based on surveys, measures of family community engagement, efforts to provide cultural and logistically relevant communication, access and need for family community engagement activities. So they've added all this stuff in from your original bill. So that details out what the needs and asset assessment must do. And then, oh, I see it. Representative Austin. Yep. Can the school use the funds to get to this point to do all this assessment and gather this information and maybe apply the second of the third year? Because I think this is really good information for schools to have and gather. And I'm just wondering if the funding as part of the grant could be used to gather this information, to get to the point where they could apply if they don't have this information. Yeah. So how this information done, the first year of funding is September of this year. So if they're identified by AWE as being like a need of this kind of funding, and if they want, then they would receive it. And then the first year they would do this needs and asset-based assessment. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, we're on B here, but B is jumping off point for B was a long time ago. So let's go back up and just make sure we know where we are. So used to funding A, it was to be on the fund end of this actually used to funding two. We went through A, which is all the needs and asset-based assessment stuff. And then B is where we go. B is to hire a community school coordinator to in collaboration with the site based leadership team, develop and implement community school programs, or designate community school coordinator from existing personnel. And in collaboration with the site based leadership team, I've met work already being performed to develop and implement community school programs. And then C says, if the recipient has not fully implemented positive behavioral injury supports, provide professional development to staff on these supports and implement those supports. Where did that come from? That came from, I'm not sure who the advocate was with that. I can't remember. Because some use PBIS and some use another system. I've forgotten what it is. And then two says that our recipient funding may use the funding to in collaboration given with the site based leadership team, develop and implement and plan to improve literacy outcomes. So again, time back to literacy. And this is in May, not a show. And then three says, if a needs asset assessment has not been conducted within the prior three years, the first year of funding should be used to conduct that assessment. And then second or third year should be used to implement the plan. Evaluation language is the same, both sides. They've added this language about ability to operate community school. So any school district or school, regardless of whether it receives funding in this act, may function as a community school as defined. And then preparation funds is the same. And then they've added other language on locally produced foods. Have we been through this before? We did go through this as I remember and we had a group of people in here. Is that the committee's memory as well? That we did have an opportunity to review this language, setting up the various programs, the task force and the... Okay. We're going to actually summarize what this is, I think once you're in detail and we can go back through it again. Representative Austin. Yeah. Is this the same as 106? This is 106, yeah. Oh, okay. I'm confused. Sorry. I just thought 106 was the use of locally produced foods. S-100 was. Okay. It originally appeared in the S-100. It got stripped out of there. Yeah. So it's been various places, so I'm not surprised of anyone's confusion. It's been my own. Yeah, no, it is confusing. This was 106. I was just confused why I thought we were going to be discussing the locally produced foods. We will in here. Later. It's in this bill. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. It's been a little confusing. So it's right here on the right hand column in yellow. Again, we'll consider all of the very complex language, really, but what this does of the state before going through is that it provides a grant program, establishes a grant program to encourage school districts to buy locally produced foods. The first year of that grant program, school districts can use their own definition of what locally produced means. And if they, I believe it's if they hit 15%, or maybe 20%, but they have a certain percentage of locally produced foods in their own definition, they get a grant of 15 cents per lunch. Served. Then after the first year, if they want to continue, then they would have to use the state definition of locally produced foods. And if they hit 15% based on the state definition, they get 15 cents per meal. If they hit 20%, they get 20 cents per meal. If they hit 25%, they get 25 cents per meal. So that's what this is doing. So we're not going through all the languages briefly. Dee here creates the grant authority for this program. And then you go over to a new section we're adding, which is locally produced foods section, which is 1264A, establishes a goal by 2023, having at least 20% of foods purchased by us to use in SDs being locally produced. Has a reporting requirement based on local definitions. Then it says, beginning with the 2021-20 school year, you can apply for a grant using your own definition, and you have to meet certain conditions. So you have to have developed a purchasing plan for locally produced foods, have an individual as a food coordinator for that program, give a process of tracking, and comply with the reporting requirements that we just went through above. If you've done that, then you get your grant. If you have, let's just see where it is. Yeah, 15 cents per lunch. If you meet the threshold, you get 15 cents per lunch, and the threshold is, where is it? Oh, no threshold, sorry. If you meet those four conditions, without any percentage, you get 15 cents per school lunch. Then after that, you're used in the state definition, and again, it goes through where the state definition is. It's cross-reference to the ag provision, excluding fluid milk, because fluid milk would be often 20% already you buy locally a fluid milk, so they want to just automatically qualify you for you doing it right. That's been excluded from the definition. And then if they hit the various percentages, they get, again, 15 cents, if you hit 15%, 20 cents, if you hit 20%, and 25 cents, if you hit 25%, locally produced foods. I'm going to go through all of this. The agency has a right to audit. There's obviously reporting required to you back. What's going on? And that's it. So that's the whole section there, and high-level summary. Staffing, Section 8 creates a staffing position of the agency to specialize in the administration of school food programs, and there's a preparation of $100,000 for the general fund and fiscal 22 for that. And then I think we've been through the task force in the University School of Lunch. This would create that task force with the goal of how, by 26, 27 school year, you get to University School of Lunch, and therefore get to University School meals. Membership of the Secretaries of these Three Agencies, Education, Human Services, and AG. And so I want to see all of the specific duties. We'll note that the tricky one is two here. It's how you collect data when the student sets up for parents to try, and the current day required for free and reduced lunch, because it's universal, so they have to have a different day collection process for that. So collaboration with a bunch of these and the other folks who are going back, of course, next year. And that's really it. So the effective day is on passage. Let me just take this down for a moment. Thank you. Jesse, I know that the AG committee sent a letter to me that I now can't seem to find. Would you contact, and I think it came from the Ledge Council, the Ledge Assistant in AG, would you be willing to just contact her and see if she could send that again and send it to you? I actually have that here from Linda. I'm happy to share it if you'd like. Oh, great. Thank you very much. This is what you're thinking of? Yes, what's this say here? OK, so they support all the language in S100. What this doesn't have is the universal breakfast. That's in S100. But that did not make it over into H106. The universal breakfast is covered by the federal government through next year, and we'll have an opportunity to look at S100. Next year. If there's not an emergency on that. But I thought we should at least note that the AG committee has taken a look at this language. OK, so Representative James. Yeah, I just wanted to remind myself the funding for the local incentives grant program. Is that in this bill or is that already? That's in the budget, right? $500,000, I believe. $500,000, yeah. Great, thank you. OK, I just wanted to, we've got a few folks in the room. I just wanted to first check with Rosie Krueger. Are you going to be able to support this process with the staffing, provide enough support for you in this endeavor? Yeah, we have the additional position that's included. We can implement this grant program as it's written in the bill. And we can certainly take a look next year in January and see if there are tweaks that we need to do to it. But at least gets this going. Any other questions for Rosie Krueger? Who handles all things nutrition and the agency? Yeah, I'm sorry. I should have said for the record Rosie Krueger from my Agency of Education, State Director of Child Nutrition Programs. No, we appreciate your work very much. We have a few other folks in the room. Wanted to check in with the Teacher's Association. You actually brought a lot of this original language to us and wanted to see how it looks now, now that it's fully closed. Yeah, wonderful. Good morning, folks, for the record. Colin Robinson, Vermont NEA. First of all, thanks for the great work on 106 and the fact that we're here now is a testament to the work that you did. The Senate did, I think, some additional tuning to address some of the targeting that came up. You might remember there was a floor amendment around making sure that the right schools were able to access this. And I think some of the language that the Senate brought into this addresses that and also ensures that there's some strong collaboration at the local level. So we continue to support it and are excited about the prospect of moving this forward to support students. The one other little thing I'll note is some of the language that you saw in the Senate version that is new around trauma. Senator Lyons, of course, is the chair of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. She's deeply connected into conversations about adverse childhood experiences and trauma. And she brought that into the Senate conversation. And so that's why some of those things emerged in their adjustments to the bill, I believe. She and I participated in a work group on adverse childhood experiences and trauma a couple of years ago. It's an appropriate addition. Absolutely. And wanted to reach out to the principals, Jay Nichols. Good morning, everybody. Jay Nichols for the record, executive director of the Vermont Principals Association. We were able to work actually worked a lot with Vermont NEA and obviously the Rep James when the bill was over here. And we're able to work some with Senator Campion and Vermont NEA to make a few language changes that we felt needed to happen to make sure that the bill actually complied with Vermont law. And I think the way it is right now, it's very strong. I also concur that the language that was added in by Senator Lyons is appropriate and very useful. And I was glad to see that addition. So I think it's a very strong bill. We are in support of it. And the school boards. Good morning, everyone. Sousa Glowski, Vermont School Boards Association. I don't have really much to add to what Jay just said other than, you know, he noted that we did have some concerns about the language in the Senate. And those concerns were addressed in the Senate proposal of amendment. Thank you. Thank you. And do we have the superintendent? Jeff Francis is not with us right now, but he did tell us to tell you that he can concur with the school boards and principals. Okay. So this is on the notice calendar. We don't have possession. So I would like to take a straw poll on whether the support and or if there's any other further discussion on this bill. Representative Coopley. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Jim, if or Brianne, maybe you can help me a little bit with the funding mechanism. We have now gone from a grant program to the agency of education. Supporting this financially for the three year period and thereafter. Am I correct in that assumption? Almost. So yes, we move from a grant program to the agency basically determining who should get the money based on need and desire and how much to get. Again, working in collaboration with the trauma folks. It's funding for three years, but not beyond. So after three years, the grant fund, sorry, grant funds, the funding ends. And then if the school is going to carry on their program, I assume that the school budget or maybe there'll be another state program, I'm not sure, but. Okay. Thank you. And our bill, as you remember, was developed. It passed before ARPA. So remember we did a similar thing with the literacy bill. We moved it from a grant program to two. It made it less clumsy once we knew they had the ARPA funds. Representative James. But the funding source is still the ARPA money. Yes. Not off the top of the Ed fund. Right. That is only for the trial period of three years. After that it goes to the Ed fund. Actually, the Ed fund is going to be paying for it now anyway, because they've disallowed the grant program in the Senate. If I'm not mistaken. It's extra three funds funding this program for three years. That's right. Yeah. After that it goes to the Ed fund. It goes to local budgets and therefore the Ed fund. Yeah. And is there, I mean, at that point, how many, let's say that another ten or so school districts or SUs decide they'd like to join this program or apply for the program? Is there, is there any stopgaps there in terms of funding? So after three years, there's no further funding so they can't get further state funding unless you do something more. I think again. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. I was just going to say that this would be a local decision so the school budgets could decide and that the townspeople would vote to approve or not approve the budget. Representative James. I just wanted to respond a little bit to Representative Coupoli. So the structure of the funding hasn't changed from the bill that we passed out. So you're tapping into S or three funds for a three year. It basically remains a three year demonstration project. What's changed is that instead of schools or districts applying for a competitive grant program, the AOE is going to reach out to schools that they think are best qualified and say, hey, would you like to do this? And if they're interested, then they'll participate in the three year demonstration grant program. At the end of that three year program, it ends. There is no obligation in this bill for the Ed fund to pick up that cost at all. And the only cost that would carry on to the districts would be if districts decide to retain their community school coordinator. Because that's the only cost of the program is hiring a community school coordinator who's embedded at the district level or as we've seen even across several districts. And as we know from our research and everything that we've learned about community schools, they can tap into once they're up and running. They qualify for other federal funding streams. They qualify or aim to seek from community funding. And most of them survive on braided funding sources that it takes a few years to kind of get up and move in. So at the end of three years, there's no, there's no obligation at all for this to become an Ed fund cost. I would imagine that at that point, the programs would have proved themselves and local voters will have a chance to decide whether they'd like to retain their community school coordinator and keep moving with it. And if other schools would like to give this a shot, they can look at, you know, eight, 10, 12 schools that have been doing this across the state using this one time money and decide whether they'd like to give it a go. I think that basically is my concern. It is one time money. And certainly, I think all of you appreciate my concern about how we continue to load up the education fund in our state. And it's becoming a real problem. And I think we need to be cognizant of the fact that these programs as we continue to develop, I'm not, I think it's a great idea, but I just can't support adding to the education fund. I just can't do it in all good conscience. Thank you. And you do recognize that this bill does not affect the Ed fund. I just clarify that. I think it will affect the Ed fund in future years. I am almost certain it will, at some point, in particular, taking away from the grant, taking the grant funding away. Representative Toof. Thanks, Chair Webb. I also just want to voice some of my concerns are similar to Representative Coopley's. Just in the future, I'm looking at this going on the Ed fund. I think we're jumping the gun on this. This is something that I think we're kind of putting the cart before the horse. I think with our 426 coming out, we're looking at what schools are going to look like, what kind of investments we're going to put into it. I think this is something that we could go down the line, we could look into. But I do think that this could be a burden on the Ed fund three, four, five, maybe even 10 years from now. So that's where I was caught up when it originally left. I do like the school lunch portion of this bill. I'm a big supporter of that. I've voiced that before in this committee. So I just wanted to give my couple of thoughts about my concerns with this bill and why I can't support it. And I know that Representative James and I have talked in length about how much I do support this idea. I just don't think we're there yet. And I appreciate all the hard work from everyone in this committee on this. And I thank everyone for coming in. But I just right now in 2021, I'm just not ready for it. Thank you. Representative Austin. Yep. I will support this bill, but I really share Representative Cookely and Representative Tooth's concern about the pressure on the Ed fund. I mean, healthcare is rising 11%. We have the pension coming up. We have huge funding issues. And I mean, I was just reading yesterday that the incredible impact they're finding now about preschool on successful lives and academic achievement. Just data is coming out more and more about the power of the preschool programs. And I'm hoping that we can move some of the preschool programs into the public schools in order to advance academic achievement. Because I really think that's what is going to help, you know, less fortunate children. You know, diverse communities of children, the best thing that can happen for them is to them to graduate 12th grade with the skills and knowledge and values that are going to make them contributing members to society. And all these ideas are great. It's not like, you know, universal school lunch and this aren't wonderful ideas. It's just, you know, I think we really have to start prioritizing what is really going to help kids be successful once they leave the 12th grade. So I'm very concerned about these programs that we're adding and not looking at what the priorities are and the costs that we're beginning to incur for our incurring. So that's just, I will support this bill. 100% of Brown. Thank you, Chair Webb. I just want to say how excited I am that this committee has spent so much time working on this bill this year. And I think one of the really important elements for me and one of the reasons that I so strongly support the work that we've done is the testimony that we heard from the national experts around just how timely this community school's model is as we look towards COVID recovery. And I also think, you know, one of the great, one of the best elements of this kind of program is the flexibility that it allows for communities in terms of assessing their needs and really taking a tailored approach that's specifically going to address the needs that they see within their schools and their communities. So I think it's a great step forward as we as we move into the pandemic recovery phase. And I certainly hope that we can move this across the finish line. Representative Williams. Yes, thank you. I will be supporting this bill because when you set the good and the bad on the scale, the good outweighs. As you know, my biggest concern is what everyone else is concerned about is the Ed fund. We have to take care of that. It's going to come back to beta someday, but the good right now is going to take priority for today. Representative James. Thanks, Chair Webb. You know, I just wanted to go back to the to the research year because you know, the reason I think it's so important to move this bill this year is because we have this very unique opportunity to tap into federal stimulus funds for this. To get these programs, you know, up and running and get them to the point where they can be self-sufficient, you know, that takes a couple of years. So we have the chance to fund this program right now without going to the Ed fund. And if you know, I didn't have my research ready for today. But in studying this bill, you know, I went back to all of the academic studies that have been done showing that community schools pay returns on investment anywhere from three to $15 for every buck you you invest. Once these schools are up and running, they start bringing resources flowing into those schools. And you know, I did want to also mention to people is that, you know, it's certainly not a slam dunk. But the Biden administration is very supportive of full service community schools. And they are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars coming down the pike for community schools. And I think that speaks to, you know, a future source of federal funding. If we've got a community schools model up and running here, that we've managed to establish as a demonstration project, you know, we'll have some schools that are doing it will have a lot of lessons learned about how we can make these schools successful. And we will be well positioned, I think, to tap into those some of those federal funds if they start coming down the pike. So this is one of those examples of looking ahead and trying to position ourselves for the future of education. Representative Coopley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I will caution on one time monies in spending one time funds. And I would also say that we can't look and hope and if funding is going to be available two years, three years, four years, or even longer from the federal government. I think we're going to find some some issues of inflation that will create the federal government to just stop funding a lot of things as well. And I look at that from a from an economic standpoint. And I think we need to be certainly aware of federal funding can stop any day, if in fact it even comes to us. I know that we're talking about infrastructure funding. That bill in the in the in the Senate in the House in Washington is under a lot of scrutiny. And I would be very, very cautious about looking to looking into the future in terms of spending. Thank you. Okay, we're going to close in just a minute here about what I want to say is how many times have we heard schools community say the school is the heart of our community. Well, I say then make it so how the community wraps around the students in those schools is probably going to have a far bigger effect on those students, particularly children in trauma than the explicit difference in the math program. The community is going to have the biggest effect. And I think that this is a way of at least getting a start to see if indeed this model will work and providing that opportunity for our students and our schools, I think is terrific. And with that, I would like to take can we in support of the Senate amendment would like to just do a check here. And I'm just going to go around the room and do a little count here. So we'll start with Representative Austin. I can either give me a thumbs up or say yes. Okay. Yes. Representative Brown. Representative James. Yes. Representative Harrison. Yes. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Brady. Yes. Representative Conlon. Yes. Representative Toof. No. Representative Coupoli. No. Representative Webb. Yes. Did I miss somebody? You miss me? Representative Williams. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Good work, Kathleen. You will be the reporter. And we'll talk as soon as we head to the floor just on timing on this. Thank you, everybody.