 Thank you. Welcome to Senate Education, Thursday, April 7, 205. A couple of housekeeping items or maybe one house education committee did vote out a universal meals bill today pilot program they're calling it for one year using 29 million of the education surplus funds. Just to discuss at some point, I know that I have concerns in this committee, they didn't put any money in for PCBs. I do am worried about 29 million dollars going to a pilot program for one year. But we will have that discussion. I think part of my concern is, you know, it's, you've got a lot of middle and upper middle class for monitors as we talked about this committee that would certainly benefit from that and we haven't, you know, reached up at, you know, honestly, over the past several years, we haven't, and I'm not sure if where I would put my first dollar. So that's just where I'm at. Yeah, so they put it in a bill or passed it, you know, they put it in, they put it in the S 100 bill is my understanding from the chair. So now this will go to house. The universal meals from last year. Sorry about that. I've been clear. So they expanded it to lunch and. Yeah, I mean, I'll be honest. And as I've been upfront with the advocates in the hall. There are choices. And me, the choice of 29 million disappearing for one after one year. I'm more inclined to myself to do something where we've got PCBs and school construction and all those kinds of things that are more long term. And permanent. And permanent. Yes, I really genuinely worry about that. It's worth the same. Yeah, yeah, and you know, we'll jump into it and maybe there'll be ways to find to deal with all of these issues, but we need to know what that pilot and tips is that for the whole state, you know, I mean, I could think it's worth a million. There's a way of doing something much smaller. So there's that this bit of housekeeping is to keep everyone aware of where things are. And I think we're going to have to plan the terms of decision making, because obviously, we're going to want to have the PCB stuff in there. So is it going to, are these two bills going to collide or are they going to end up together in appropriations where the decision will be made. So I, are you already. So what I convey to the chair of appropriations and I believe I'm representing everyone in this or was accurately representing your committee's issues that we are would like PCBs to be addressed. And I think she will look to us though to help navigate whether or not. I think it'll be a combination of this committee appropriation and ways. I talked to center coming this morning as well about this. And, you know, again, I don't want, I don't know where the whole Senate will end, but I think there, there are, there are some, I think generally there are some concerns about a one year pilot 29 million gone. And we might not address other issues. And we've had we have a request from our committee for a significant appropriation for the food shelf. Yeah. Okay. And they are further apart. The food bank. That's what I meant. Yeah. So for today, though, we're going to continue our work on as 27. We're going to follow up with Colin Robinson. The NEA who he and his long shop, you may recall, gave us the outline of the future workforce shortage idea how to address it. There were some questions around funding I'd like him just to talk to us about the flow of funding that you raised and others. Back at 727. Then we have you have UVM coming in on S one or an act relating to education military families, which is now part of age 517. And then S to 48, I have a memo here that I think many of you have seen online, but it's not here is a paper copy of it. You don't have a copy that I asked the state colleges and UVM to come in to talk about. And then finally, as I mentioned yesterday, we have Peter teach out and Harrison start coming in for. Here's their positions on this. All interesting stuff, perhaps starting with the most interesting this St. James each 727. I think we finished one and just to yesterday. So we're looking at the last chunk, which is three. Yes, and definitely do you have. We're looking at the second four. Yes. Okay, please. So, three is for section. So, remember, we started with redesignate a section devoted to redesigning to statute taking them out of chapter 11 and bumping them up to chapter nine. And then section two of this bill repealed chapter 11 and then section three was chunks one and chunks two together. The section four, five, six, and seven are they comprised of three. And they are session law meant to address withdrawal withdrawal processes that are already underway. So the first section is section four, and that is withdrawal actions approved by the state board. New districts with an operational date on or after July 1, 2023. So this section only applies to a withdrawal action initiated pursuant to provisions of 16 dsa section 724 that were an effect prior to the effective data section three, so current law. And this graph will call it former section 724. And if each of the following actions occurred prior to the effective date of section three, which is remember chunks one and chunks two. So, here's the posture of this application, the state board of education has given final approval to the voter approved and the voter ratified proposal to withdraw from the union school district. The state board has declared a new school district to be reconstituted. The state board established the new school district operational date is July 1, 2023 or after the voters of the new school district elected school board members, the voters of the town so then the union district voted to approve the financial withdrawal associated by the board of the new school district and union district, and the state board charge the new school district and a board with performing the transitional activities necessary to assume sole responsibility to the education of resident students on the identified operational date. So then that basically described the Rickston situation for the session law was meant for Dr. through this process. And there were other terms in the process but it's various stages so they had to have gone through all of these. Yes, so section five will address the Joe situation section six will address the Lincoln situation. So for section four, what this section would apply only to a withdrawal action that had already been approved. So the voters have already voted on it and state board has already approved that under current law. Section seven. It's on, it's very short it's on page 22. So, so ripped in is partly through their process. I think they are already all the way through the process. Okay, these guys. Yeah, section four section four, which is these are for generally anybody who's all their way all the way through their process. Anyone who meets this exact criteria. Yeah. If you look at your testimony from various stakeholders on who meets this criteria. Ripton was a town that was commonly referred to previously, but technically this section would apply to any, anyone who meets the criteria. I think there's probably only one out there that says. I apologize. I was looking for a moment at the other part of the bill. And this is allowing ripped into what it is allowing so it is allowing ripped into you'll see eventually. We have to give the state board an update on how it's doing in preparing to meet its operational date. So this is just an overview of what section four is requires the town I don't have to rest in. It requires the town, the new school district to give the state board an update on its plan to meet its operational date. And then the state board. I don't have any information. And because we're getting one out. Well, we don't, I don't work a town in Addison County. What I heard. So the state board is going to make it is given. The state board required and then the state board is going to say, great, it looks like you're doing great. Or the state board can say, we have some concern. Here they are. The town, the new school district has two options. You're going to go full team ahead. Or prior to October one of the operational date. It could take the off ramps that section four create. And you'll see the off ramp in section five and section. And the off ramp allows us to get out of the process. It allows them to ask the state board to essentially void the withdrawal approval and keep them as part of the Unified Union. And then the section then allow them to withdraw sort of in the law. They've already done that. They've already withdrawn under current law. They remember current law says there's a vote of the positioning down. Then it goes to all the rest of the towns in the district. And if they all say yes, then it goes to the state board for approval. So what the piece that we're waiting on is the state board's reaction. The state board has already approved. I think. No, I was going to say so. I to hear if they've already been through the process. You're going to have to take testimony on that. I think they're coming tomorrow. I think so. It's an excellent question and it will help put this draft in perspective and I, I may be misremembering, but I think there was a lot of testimony. Prior to this draft being the use of language being huge in the house. So it may have made more contextual sense. You will now have the framework with which to interact with your witnesses in this section. But yes, I know that sounds very confusing. That this is addressing a withdrawal that has already happened for all intents and purposes. Under under current state law. They're done. They're withdrawn. They have an operational date that they are theoretically working for. So this gives them, there's nothing, and there's no take backs in current state law. There's no view over. So this gives them an opportunity to say, we would like to continue to remain in the union department. So that, that was basically a discussion of section four. And real quickly on page two, the state board is, or the new school district is required to give a status update with the state board of education. I'll point out the date of July 22 on page two. So the status report is due to the state board on or before their regular July 2022 state board meeting. I don't know when in the month of July, the state board plans to meet, but if this act takes effect on July one. So that's a quick turnaround. So it would just be either a date to change or something to contemplate in the effective section, effective section. And then the gas report essentially have to tell the state board what they are doing, working towards their operational base. So the state board would use that and gives the new school district an opportunity to be heard and it may in its discretion to take testimony from others, including the rest of the union school district that they just withdrew from and a week. And then just like in the section seven point four that we looked at yesterday and jumped to they're going to issue a preparedness recommendation or a determination so the state board could determine that it's likely that the new school district will not be prepared on operational date. Or on page three, it could determine that it's unlikely. Or that there is a reasonable risk that the new district will not be prepared. And then that that opinion needs to be posted on page three line 11 needs to be posted on the new school districts website. And then the topic or the contents of the state board report or recommendations needs to be scheduled for a topic of public discussion in the new school district. And then prior to the operational date and after any public discussion. Just a minute ago, they can go full team ahead, working towards the operational date, or prior to the October one before the operational date, and I'll explain that date in a second. And then on its own motion so the, the board of the new school district can vote to warn a vote, or it could warn about it petition to do so by at least five percent of the voters in the school district. And that vote is to see if the new school district is going to request with the state board of education on view the withdrawal. The final date is so that if there are, if they're, if the off ramp is taken, there is time to address that contract before the new school year. If it looks like the new school district is not going to be a new school district. The questions decided so the vote whether or not to ask the state board of education to undo the withdrawal action is decided by Australian ballot. And then I'm on page four line four through 11 or just about certification of the vote. And then if the new school district online 12 on page four of the new school district request the state board to take action, then the state board shall reverse and void earlier declarations approving withdrawal and reconstituting the new school district. The withdrawal action initiated to the former section 724 is concluded. And the union school district shall continue to be solely responsible to the education students residing in the town that positions for withdrawal. However, on the top of page five, the new school district and four shall continue to exist for up to six months after the day I went to state board reverses and boards earlier declaration to wrap up. I don't want to make any other declarations or actions necessary support that with undoing. Yes. Has, has, has this all happened by any school yet under. Yes, I believe there have been multiple throughout. Would you say. This is based on the process is they use the. It's an improvement. This is brand new. It was the original language and concept, which was always through discussion and testimony by how bad the original proposal came from the state board of education on how to address these districts that are currently either underway or in this particular process already happened, but there might, might be some changes. Do you tell us a brick didn't testify. Multiple people in various different capacities. But I did not hear every witness I was not there for all time. Nope, I'm just. So, along with accommodating towns that are in the process gives the town that has already done this, the opportunity to change them up. Yes, it gives a new school district that has formed and we've all of the criteria on this one. We have the opportunity to say, we no longer want to withdraw we want to remain a part of the union. And that happens from 5% of the voters. The school board itself could decide to put it to a vote, or they could be forced to put it to a vote by a petition of 5% of the voters, and then the voters of the new school district to decide whether or not to petition the school board to, I guess you could look at it both ways, undo the withdrawal or remain in the school district, the same, same. That's it. The main thing of the section four, and it adds state board review. To the process to the process that we wouldn't have now so without this. Britain will just be one. This requires another review because the way the law was written, we didn't have that review before they had only make that one time. So, I could see somebody correct and saying this is owners, not an apartment. And they could, I mean, but they also created more that recommendation. Just, it's a process. So, I thought you said that. So the status report that's required is the school district is a shout. Okay. So on or before the regular July 24 to FB me name the new school district shall submit a written status report to the board. I understand. I'm sorry, but whatever they could ignore the state board. Yes, the off the off ramp is totally optional. The board's is the preparedness teams unlikely. Thank you. Thanks for going ahead. Correct. Ignore the board's warning that they're unlikely to be prepared. They have to hold a meeting to allow public discussion of the board's recommendation. And then it's up to either the state board itself to decide to take the off ramp. Or if they're petition to do so. Warn a vote on whether or not to take the off ramp or if they're petition to do so that 5% voters to warn a vote on whether or not to take the off ramp. But if neither of those triggering events happen, then they can just go full team ahead with preparing for their operation. Okay. So I come from a background with city governance, municipal governance and land of elder regulations and we're always the caution spot zoning and I feel like we were cautious to the beginning of this conversation, not necessarily name a specific town is that at all relative with what we're doing here, but it seems like we are crafting language in order to address the root scenario is that at all factors discussion. That is intent is solely in your wheelhouse. I as neutral legislative council didn't feel comfortable using the names of the town constantly throughout. I just wanted to, you haven't heard testimony from witnesses. I wanted to put a little context around what you, the way in which this will probably be discussed and I which witnesses, but you don't need to delicately walk around. That's for you to decide. Do we do it. The energy world, and then we just say that there was legislation that was only for IBM, but we would say again, we'd say any chip manufacturer over 500. Located within the border. We don't have any caution as we're discussing this we need to be more So this is so my dog here is to walk through the language. There's no town names in any of these sections. So my the only and maybe I just won't do it going forward. It was just you haven't heard. So when the state board gave this proposal they obviously gave context from a policy standpoint that I'm unable to do and you haven't had that yet. So just to do a chance to set the stage and it was perhaps the fourth time. But this, none of, nothing in Trump three references a county. And theoretically, even if this legislation was drafted with one time in mind, it applies to any town that fits this specific criteria. And then the section four is set to repeal on July 1, 2023. So it's a limited, it's a limited amount of time before that process happened there. I believe their operational date is on July 1. So. Well, no, I just got a letter from the representatives and senators from a loyal county that are talking about this withdrawal section. Yeah, they're coming in tomorrow. They are. Yeah, they are. Okay. They are more likely to be interested in section five. Okay. Continue. Any questions on section four. Okay. Are we okay on time at two 30. Yeah, no, we are okay on time. Actually, is calm. All right, if you don't mind, we'll break on this and we'll come back to it. Probably. Is that okay with you? On the work. Thank you. Mr. Robinson, nice to see you. Good afternoon. Good to see you all. So thanks for coming back in on the teacher workforce shortage. For those watching, and I'm not sure center lines, if you were here when we actually jumped into this. We're talking with our colleagues and appropriations about the possibility of doubling the proposal you put forward, which would bring us to maybe 300 teachers over the next couple, couple of years. We'll start to address this teacher shortage and you've heard from this committee are concerned. We know that there are other workforce development bills going. And this would likely end up in our miscellaneous education bill, or even more likely perhaps directly in the budget. So we're in conversation with Senate approach that being said, we have some questions. And one of the questions is, can you take us back and tell us a little bit about how this money flow. I had a conversation in the hall. And it really helped clarify things for me. Then we talked about a little bit committee. I thought best to have you and just to tell us again how sort of how this would actually work. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for the record con Robbins, Vermont any a and thanks again for the committee's focus on this. So, as it relates to the, to the flow of money and the appropriation sort of outlined it here is as a practical matter. I think what would make sense is for it to actually be appropriated. It would eventually flow to the school districts. But of course, you know, because we're not talking about necessarily every single school district participating in this or some school districts might have 12 participants and some might have one. It can't be a direct allocation per district. And so the construct that we believe would be most appropriate would actually be for the funding to flow to the agency of education to then be paid directly to the school districts on a per participant level at the amount that we talked about on Tuesday, which is the 50 figure. And so for a district that had 12 participants in this program, they would get 12 times 4750 for district that add three teachers that have three times 4750. I think that's the way it would programmatically and financially probably have make the most sense to flow to the districts. So I partly raised this because of my personal experience with my spouse who earn a master's degree paid for by a public school district in the great state of Vermont to the Southern New Hampshire University, which was marketing up in this area. And as she was taking that program which he had a good experience with I kept thinking with those dollars be better kept in states and they are public dollars. You see any avenue for this these monies that going through this agency of education to have some sort of restrictions that they could only be used for a must take college programs. Yes, yes. Yep, that's a great question, Senator Chitenden. So as outlined in this proposal, and remember, just as a baseline for the committee and a reminder for those who might not have heard previously. This is scaling up a program that is being stood up in the Northeast Kingdom right now, right now. And, and so to that end, the specific arrangement and the credits that will be offered are through Castleton State University or Northern Vermont University at Castleton. And so that is the institution of higher education that would be receiving the tuition dollars. So as outlined in this proposal, those dollars would, those tuition dollars would actually come through previously budgeted allocated professional development dollars from the local district. So teachers at the local level is, I think you're sort of alluding to Senator Chitenden have access to professional development funds. So in this program, those professional development funds would be used to pay for the three credit course at Castleton or Northern Vermont University, Castleton. I apologize for probably not speaking the name of the university correctly today. My apologies for missing that I received a lot of memos this week. No problem. Senator Hooker. Oh, sorry, if you mind if I just ask one quick question. So with the pilot program that we're sort of standing from the kingdom, did those dollars go to AOE now that I was talking with my colleague, Juliet Longchamp about that. And, you know, if you remember the origin story on that was seven curriculum directors came to her and said, Hey, we need help. Right. And so I believe they're braiding different funds, some Esther funds, some other local funds available but I also understand there are some districts in the kingdom that want to participate in this program but don't have the resources to do it. And so what is there any is AOE involved right now we're putting AOE sort of in the center, you know, to distribute the funds, but right now they're not. That is correct. I mean I see. But what I will, what I will say is that my colleague Julie has been in multiple conversations with the licensing division at the Agency of Education that she works with frequently and probably daily. Okay, thank you for that center hooker. I'm just wondering yesterday I think Senator Chittendon mentioned visa and the possibility. And since I'm not sure whether AOE has the resources that they need. Yeah, and just wondering if that's an alternative. May I respond. So Senator hooker I think the proposal that we that we're talking about here and now is structured the way it is because it's ready to go now. And, you know, obviously back in February we spoke with you all about possible role for Vsac in helping develop and grow the teaching profession and the teacher workforce and I think that that would be a really really great conversation to dig into. And I think it relates to this specific proposal that as envision the structures already there for these funds to go to Castleton and visa could very easily have a role in the in the future or for future initiatives. Mr Fisher, would you identify yourself for the record, and then we just curious about the AOE flow through. I'm Ted Fisher for my education. I'm our director. And I apologize. I'm a slightly of a disadvantage. I'm not familiar with the program. I'm just wondering if you could bring me a little speed on. I think I've got some kind of clear question. You know your own program that the agents that Mr Robinson, his team at NEA started in the kingdom to improve the workforce around teachers. And we know that we've already heard I think from was out of Mr Robinson or his long shot about about 1000 openings already for the fall. I don't want to not address this. And this seems like a really a program that's already happening there's some success and we're told that you know at an investment of about $1.5 million we could get about, we could go toward getting 300 teachers from from local school, people that are already in the district already working maybe in education. They might need to finish a couple classes they might need to, you know, they need to get their certification, etc. So just to make sure I understand what you're considering the idea is for I'm sorry, Colin, I'm speed on this but on your your kid I'm sure my colleagues are on your consideration is to give money for higher education courses or things to help get part of that degree and get part of life in terms of things. Well, it's a little bit trickier than that. I mean not tricky, but it involves, you know, identifying teachers at local districts local schools would service mentors there's a process where you know people would help them get certified, etc. We're looking for the same education to sort of be the past for some of this money. Yeah, and just for clarification Ted so it's it's going through the peer working to provide wrap around supports to guide teachers through the peer review process that your licensing division stands up. So, so it's fundamentally deeply integrated with the peer. It is guiding and supporting teachers on provisional licenses or aspiring educators who are starting the year next year on a provisional license to successfully complete the peer review process that one has to go through in the licensing division. Absolutely. Okay, so I just have to put in our director of education quality after all day. Great. Where he stands on this, if I, you know, the last thing about the digital world is sometimes I get a response right to do with you. I wouldn't suggest and request that we come in and talk to you about this. Mr holidays here tomorrow, but it'd be great to get this resolved actually today possible. Okay. Yeah, great. Is there a reason that you are here. I mean, I don't mean that. No, I appreciate you being here. Stay as long as you like that wasn't that I'm looking at the agenda and nothing else popping up so it's great if you're just here. I don't mean that. I'm glad to be dry. Sure. Great. Absolutely. We can listen in but I like to be in the room. I appreciate it. I really do. I didn't eat it. I just sit here all the time, but it's a new thing. It is. Can I just ask, Mr Fisher, if you could clarify something that came up yesterday, you mentioned the thousand openings. Yeah, yes. Great question. That's a good question for Dr holiday. What we have seen is a pretty, we have seen an increase. We, this is not a new problem. And it's, and it's depending on the, both the part of the state and depending on the type of life, right. So the type of specialty. The quality division puts out a report every year. Yeah, the federal government on what are the shortage areas so that by licensing category so middle school social studies or oftentimes. And actually, probably more familiar than I, but a lot of times like music and art sometimes are shorted area depends on the, even in Vermont, the small state might attend on the region of the county. And just because it's not on the thing we often said, just because a particular specialty isn't on that list doesn't mean that he's been a shorted in part of the state. Right. So that's free code. Now we are seeing. Christian books and entering the profession right so anything that you see for free code and you can, I think at this point for you. It's a good question. Mr. Robinson, you have an answer to that. On the, the number of jobs. Yeah, generally this number of 1000 that opening is it that where we usually are or is this really high or I think it's higher. But anecdotally, it's higher. I will say similar to Ted, nobody's sort of been following the data as closely as perhaps, you know, would have collectively been useful. But anecdotally, it's higher and it's also early so as a, as this committee knows from other conversations, teachers usually get issued their contract sometime in April, and then return it. So we will, if we're seeing these numbers in April before teachers have received or maybe haven't returned their contracts for next year we can anticipate greater openings. I think also and you can ask Dr. Patrick Hallie about this tomorrow. By the way, he has Juliet Longchamp has shared this proposal with him. He's seen it so he can he can speak to it and his perspective on it. But I believe there's also been a significant uptick in provisional licenses over the past two years. And I think there's something like 800 or so folks on provisional teacher licenses right now. Compared to pre pandemic numbers which were significantly smaller. I, he would be able to tell you very specifically what that was. And those provisional licenses are for two years and what's envisioned here is helping somebody who's on a provisional license, essentially sort of matriculate to a highly skilled classroom educator with a full endorsement and license so they can stay in the classroom and build a career. Great. I think it's exciting. It really is. And I'll be good to hear. Is it Dr. holiday. Tomorrow on this issue. So, great. Yeah, please. I have one more point of clarification my colleague, Julie is texting me. And she wanted me to point out that. So, back to the, the per person cost $1,200 of that would actually stay with the agency of education because as you can see in the breakdown the budget $1,200 is the cost of the peer review fee that goes to the agency of education for these folks to receive their, their license. So, I'm just wondering, I know that when Dr. Longchamp presented the program last time, you indicated there might be a deeper dive or another document that we could look at that would give greater explanation. Do you have that. Yes, I shared it with the committee and I believe Daphne is posted on the website. It is. It's a third time. I'm just wondering, I know that when Dr. Longchamp presented the program last time, you indicated there might be a deeper dive or another document that we could look at that would give greater explanation. Do you have that. I'm just wondering if the committee and I believe Daphne is posted on the website, it is. It's a 13 page document so there's, there's a timeline, a detailed timeline, some job descriptions. I did on that document I will say you'll see an organizational chart. I did want to flag for the committee underneath the, the sort of breakdown of the cost. There's something that talks about application process and student teaching equivalent, and I clarified with Julie that is the existing peer review process requirements, as the agency of education has them right now so that's not something that's unique to this specific program those are the baseline processes established for the peer review process that an educator would have to go through to complete it. So that was the point of education that was just to provide that clarification. We have that in our email but it's not on the web page yet. Okay, then you have it in your email and I'm sure it will be on the website website soon. Yeah. No rush. Thank you for Mr Robinson. Yeah, I'm giving Patrick some updates for so he's a more service to tomorrow. What is the, what is the dollar for you're looking at right now. So it was a $727,000 I think that would help us get to that 150 teachers. We doubled it in our sort of informal conversations and said it'd be great to try to get 300 teachers and therefore whatever that ended up being And the, we were able to update the document to reflect that 300 figures so in the document that Daphne is going to post it will reflect the 300 person conversation of the committee. Yeah, no thank you very much. You're okay. Okay. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Okay, Mr Robinson anything else from you on this. I mean we were just curious about the flow and that's really helpful. No I appreciate the committee's interest and fast work on this and definitely as it as it moves into other committees please. And I think that the committee is as you need to move that process along, and obviously is, as I think was noted, you know, I think this is the beginning of a conversation around around this issue and happy that we're able to come to committee and time to see this potentially be useful for the acute need here now. I appreciate it. Mr Robinson if you don't mind, given that we have spoken with the chair of approach, if you would reach out to that committee and just make yourself available. You know they are planning to move everything fast and furious and we can certainly our less counsel is working on some language that we'll have that we could put in the budget, but it'd be great if you just make yourself available to them so that they know, you could kind of talk to them about it. Absolutely I have other things to connect with that chair about so I will happily add this to the list. Thanks for your time I appreciate it. Thank you.