 This is Tuesday, April 21st. This is the House Education Committee and the Vermont House of Representatives, and we are taking a testimony on possible delays related to Act 173. So, Jim, you have been working with the Senate and ultimately this bill will start with the Senate. And can you give us an update as to where that bill is at this time? Okay, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, so for the record, Jim, Dan will let us console. We walked through the draft Senate bill last week, although there are two changes I wanted to highlight for you since then. And the best way of highlighting the first change is to go to the spending chart, the one that looks like this. So if you can pull that up for us, that would be helpful. Okay, so the first change from last week is a very technical one. Let me just do this. And the change involves the way in which the uniform base amount is computed. So if you look at the boxes, the very last one for fiscal year 27 talks about the uniform base amount. And that's where you get to the point where all school districts are using the same amount per student to determine the census grant. That uniform base amount, although it first applies in fiscal year 27, has to be known by fiscal year 24. And the reason for that is in fiscal year 24, you start moving, school districts start moving toward it. So in the first year of fiscal year 23, you're getting a grant that equals that they basically had gotten in previous years, not on a per student basis, but just a amount of money that equates to what they got under the reimbursement system. And in fiscal year 24, 25 and 26, they all start adjusting the amount expressed on a per student basis to the uniform base amount. So those are three transitional years. So you have to know in fiscal year 24, what the uniform base amount is for fiscal year 27. So the way in which the uniform base amount is computed is it is the average of three years is the average of fiscal year 18, 19 and 20, funding for special education, plus an employer. Okay, that's the key part of it. And the issue that I realized going through this was, you won't know what the employer is. In fiscal year 24, 25 and 26, because they haven't happened yet. So how can you inflate something that you don't know how to inflate. So what the draft does is it inflates and takes the average of funding for fiscal year 18, 19 and 20, plus an employer for the years that are unknown. In fiscal year 24, 25 and 26, we hit the average inflation rate from the previous years as a proxy. Okay. I hope that's clear. We'll go through the draft now but before we go to the draft, are there any questions with what I just explained. It's definitely a little bit complicated to follow. Does anybody have an intelligent question. Well, I just realized I don't have my, I don't have my list of the moment. There we go. Sarita. Yeah, Austin. Can you, can he just, Jim, can you just say that one more time. I am muted. Yeah, the issue is, separate back broadly, that you've got to, we've got to go through the uniform base amount of fiscal 27, which is an average of the amount spent on special education in fiscal years 18, 19 and 20, and that average is supposed to inflate. What the inflation rate is from those years all the way to fiscal year 27. But you have to know what the information that is in fiscal year 24. So you won't know what the inflation rate is for fiscal year 24, 25 or 26. So we have to have a little proxy for that. And so all we're doing is we're taking the earlier inflation rate and using that as a proxy for those years. Just to remind folks who folks that weren't here when this bill was developed. This starts with everybody uses their whatever their budget was plus an inflator. And that average over three years based on three year membership. Correct. That's what the start is. Based on. This year's 23 you mean. Yes, so that's the start. Now that means that some districts are starting at a place and over time, they're going to be getting more money as they're working toward a common plan. Yeah, so I'm not going to be getting less over time. Yeah. Well, you're going to get the average of what they received before. So the first year isn't a census grant because it's not based on per student count. It's based on the amount that you received on average historically. And basically you're 23. You take that amount of money and you divide by your your student count. So you come to a per student count amount or per capita amount. And the issue in 23 is that that per capita amount is going to be all the place because a school districts would have received different amounts historically and reimbursement and have different number of students. So, therefore, in the years 24, 5, 6, wherever you are, you're moving toward a uniform, uniform amount, you're moving up or you're moving down toward a uniform amount in 27. Does that make sense folks throwing that. So this particular section is just fixing that point of confusion and identifying identifying basically where you're going to be when you when you moving to the next inflator. Correct. And this is an issue with the original ball 173 when I was going through all these state changes and started thinking more about this and realized actually doesn't work through this draft and so this is a fix for that. And this is something you found from moving with it. Well, it's all this time it just sort of appeared as a problem that we missed. Yeah. Yeah. So if we could go then to the bill itself. Okay, and then a brief scroll down to the first area where it's highlighted in yellow is right here. Okay. So go up a little bit further, please. Right there. Stop. Thanks. Okay, so life forces you for a basic amount means amount determined by so we're dividing amount equal to the average state appropriation. This was your years 1819 20 for special education. And then we're increasing that scroll down a bit further if you would. We're using that for inflation for the years that will be known. So for fiscal year 21 2223, we were able to use the actual inflation rates for those years. And then 16 for the years where we won't know the inflation rate is because we have to know what this uniform base amount is by fiscal year 24. So for 2425 26 we're using the average inflation factor for fiscal year is 21 2223. Does that make sense. So that would be that would be your new start place then. That's how this would be fixed or proxy for inflation. 1617 is the inflation rate. The average inflation rate for your fiscal year is 21 2223. Thank you for finding that. And remember to that once you know from based on a set. It doesn't inflate after that so after fiscal year 27. It doesn't increase. And that was where there could be potential cost savings over time. Just remind the committee. Okay, every if you can go down toward the end of the bill. Just as reminder, there could be cost savings as long as we end up putting in some of the practice changes. So keep going through every to the yellow right here. So now we have a new section for which is amending act 173 section that that is based from the advisory group. And we're giving it a bit more life and a bit more on me so online 20 they says it will cease to exist on June 30 2023 so it's been extended by a year that will bring you through the first year of grant funding. And then to scroll down further everybody. So this is certainly 2022. Yeah, I was thinking it was early. Yeah. So, this is pretty general language but basically line fives, we originally had eight needs per year. But they need more meetings. So we're moving into 12 meetings per year and basically yours 21 2223. The appropriation has to increase as well so if you scroll down a bit further online 10, the preparation now per year is about $9,000 that would be appropriate for fiscal year 21. And then for the future years, the agency will include a special request that amount of money for each of this year 2223. And those are the only changes to what we would be reviewed together last week. Has the Senate reviewed this language yet. Not at all. And not at all. Okay. We will need to address that. So any questions for Jim before we go to Emily. Seeing none. Emily can we get a response from the agency. Thank you for the record Emily Simmons general counsel for the agency of education. I can respond to Jim's two changes in the bill that perhaps I should first give the agency's position on the general topic we haven't had that discussion in this committee together yet. So I submitted written testimony which is identical to testimony that the secretary of education submitted to the Senate committee, not trying to give you guys short shrift just trying I know you're on the Senate committee very closely, given all the procedural irregularities right now so I'm trying to keep everyone on the same page hearing the same rationale from the agency because it isn't different depending on who we're talking to. So that agency is recommending that the general assembly pass another delay to the implementation of Act 173. That's primarily for three reasons, one being that the bill is a primarily a fiscal bill you know it is driving hopefully some cost savings in the special education system. And, as you have been talking about this is really uncertain economic time for the whole state, as well as supervisory unions and supervisory districts so there's detail in my written testimony that I'm sure you'll go back and review the main ideas just that we're entering probably economically difficult times, and it's not the wisest to push forward this change while there are so many unknowns and district budgets. Second is that staff resources, both at sort of the statewide stakeholder level as well as district leadership and special education staff teaching staff support staff are really stressed in responding to COVID-19. And the agency doesn't see that stress being alleviated, certainly by the beginning of next school year, next school year will be another dynamic difficult time for all staff that operate in the education field. And Act 173 requires a lot of professional development change planning that we don't think the field has bandwidth to do right now the agency doesn't feel we have the bandwidth and we don't see it in the field. And then third is a reason related to the current rulemaking to implement the funding and special education programmatic rules. The state board is currently in public comment on those two rule series. And I think we all share the fear that engagement in that rulemaking process from important stakeholders really isn't going to be there because people are focused on the ongoing crisis. So those were our three rationale to push everything in accordance of any three back one year. So the concept so far, it's in agreement. Now the detail. The bill draft that Jim has been working on looks good to us. He's been consulting with me and with Brad James. It was entertaining maybe if I'm being flippant to watch Brad James with his literal formulas and Jim with his narrative explanation go back and forth on that highly complex language that Jim just presented to you, but we all landed in a place of agreement on the current draft. And I was no help at all those two handle this themselves. Okay, so the agency currently supports the bill as drafted. Yes. Okay, any questions for Avery. Okay, State Board of Education, John Carol, like to hear from you as you are intimately involved in this process. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. For the record, I'm John Carol chair of the State Board of Education. What I'm going to say is content that I've reviewed with the board by email correspondence, but we have not had an opportunity to sit and as a group, prepare a response to your inquiry. But I have had comments and helpful suggestions from a couple members. So I think what I'm saying is pretty darn close to what the board as a as a whole would say, if they were being pulled. So I understand my charge here is to give you our responses to what we see in the content of the draft rec 20 dash 954. I did furnish to Avery this morning, a copy of these comments. And I'm sure she's made them available to you. Let me just summarize the way the board has engaged with this. As you know, Act 173 stipulates that the board shall write rules that will govern the implementation of Act 173. And in our world of rules, there are sort of two bunches one bunch pertains to the census based funding, and all of that currently core mechanism of the reform. The second part that people have kind of not paid a lot of attention to is the funding relationships with independent schools and how those must change, not only the scope of what the independent schools must do but the basis for reimbursement for those services. That's in a separate rule series, and is very soon to be taken up for revision. But let me go back to the census based funding rules. The rules are already completely underway in the sense that they have to go through a very formal process of review that's dictated by three vs a chapter 25 the administrative rules procedure. The state board worked with the agency and with the advisory group over period about nine months. They doing the vast amount of the work of drafting various and sometimes competing versions of the rules for census for implementing census based funding. And after nine nearly 10 months, the board felt that it had derived a consensus, which reflected very much the views of both the agency and the advisory group, as well as the board and so we adopted what we what is called the draft rule. And that's the beginning of the formal rulemaking process so for 10 months we did this kind of very informal back and forth back and forth, the agency and the advisory group working very hard together. And then when the board adopts a proposed rule, which we did in its February meeting, then the formal rulemaking process begins. And that is a those of you who have been around a PA rulemaking know that it's a it's a highly stylized dance. There's the law stipulates a whole sequence of events that must happen and the timing of those events. The day you file with the Secretary of State, the process begins and by statute, the process can must be completed in eight months or less. The process began officially on the 12th of March when we filed with the Secretary of State. We met on the ninth with the Interagency Committee on administrative rules, which is a very important first step. And so that means that the rulemaking process, if it were to go according to the normal process would have to end in about mid October, eight months. It's underway already. In fact, now we're at the stage called public comment period that began on the 17th of April, and we'll conclude about the 27th of May. So immediately you can see there's a concern. Well, what about this public comment period? If it ends on the 27th of May, as you've heard from many people, folks just have not been able to be engaged with these rules. And the public comment period is the public's last chance to give input on these rules. I might say parenthetically that the stakeholders who are interested in special education have definitely been at the table by way of the advisory group. Which is an assemblage of many stakeholders from different perspectives. So it's not like this has all been happening in the dark behind closed doors. It's been a very, very public process that has given all of the stakeholders a voice. But certainly individual families and practitioners have not really been at the table and that's the point of the public comment period. So we on the board feel that the public comment period should not come to an end on the 27th of May. We concur with those who say that it ought to be extended appreciably. However, it's against the law to do that, because the APA stipulates the process must be completed in eight months. And so one piece of what we advocate to you is that you incorporate in this in your bill explicit provision that says that the public comment period will be extended until the 31st of December of this year, adding seven months to a already six week period. And that would we are under the impression that would give practitioners and parents of special needs children and others who are interested, lots of additional time in what hope we all hope will be a more normal time. This is sort of operating on the on the faithful hope that school will resume in the autumn. And we certainly know that, for example, parents of special needs children would school closed have their hands absolutely full, taking good care of their, their kids with special needs. And their bandwidth is pretty well absorbed in that and until school resumes and those children are back in school those parents won't will they're underwater in just dealing with with their children's needs. So it's our hope that when school resumes then there'll be time and bandwidth for parents to come and tell us what they think about these proposed rules. So, the first proposal we make is that we advocate that you put language in the bill that addresses the termination of rulemaking and the and the way you have it now does not do the job. Because 3VSA, I think it's for 843 C stipulates that we have to be done by October. What we're saying is no we don't want to be done by October we want the public comment period to go on until the end of December. And then after that there's another two months of processing that has to happen. So, I can work with Jim if you like to compose some language about that but that's the first of our of our advocacy is to you. One second second for that. Are there any questions on that portion of his request. Emily, do you have a feedback on that yet. That sounds reasonable to me as well that I think that it's a fair option without adding anything into the bill. We would assist the state board and receiving dispensation from L car to exceed the normal eight month limit. I think we could all be pretty confident if you passed legislation extending the deadline and L car would feel comfortable granting an extension but if you're more comfortable and the board is more comfortable putting it right in the bill that's fine too. And Jim, you see a problem with that. Sorry, no problem. Okay. Yeah, the thank you that as to Emily's comment. The reason we would like to see in the legislation is that the process works in such a way that when you go to L car. That is at the end of your public comment period, you can ask for permission to extend the eight months. Well, we won't see L car. We don't want to see L car. We don't want to be at the end of the public comment period until we've already exceeded the eight months. So that's why having you folks address it in statute would totally eliminate any confusion about why did you come to us so late about this. If I may I'll go on to the second observation we have and this is simply to concur with the draft and the agency in the proposal that the census based funding elements of the bill and the rules, not go into effect until a year after IE on July 2022. The board is completely sympathetic with the advocacy for that we can see all the reasons you've heard and then some as to why implementation. Before that time is just placing an inordinate and unacceptable burden on practitioners, especially in the field but also at the agency and elsewhere. So that's just to clarify in the details that's in the current draft. Correct, and we concur with that. Now this, I mentioned at the beginning that there's two totally separate sets of rules here, because there's the statute really takes two very significant initiatives well, more than two. One just one quick second committee are you comfortable with with moving in that direction. Anybody have a problem with that. Seeing none and no hands raised. Let's go ahead and address that in the build and go ahead. Thank you. And part of my comments relates to this. The other key initiative of AC 173 as it relates to special ed directly, and that is the independent schools, the role of the approved independent schools in special education, and how they're to be compensated for their what they do. And as you know that's been a source of some controversy among stakeholders for some time. And so, at 173 dictates that on a separate schedule, by the law doesn't but the agency determined that on a separate schedule, the new rules for how approved independent schools shall participate in special education would be developed by the And that stipulated by the act. It's on a separate schedule and the work on those new rules has not yet begun. In fact, at the board February meeting, when we kind of finished up with the census based funding rules, we turn to the stakeholders and said okay let's get going on the rules for independence schools. And that was a long conversation. And out of that conversation emerged a couple of things. Current statute like 173 stipulates that the formal rulemaking process, ie the APA process will start on the 1st of November of this year. Our experience with the sense of a funding was that that was a 10 month process, maybe longer. I'm concerned that if the independent school rulemaking process is a 10 month process, we're already too late to meet in November one deadline. So, our first proposal in this connection with regard to what's called 2200 rules, which is the independent school rules. Our first request of you is to include in the stat in the bill before you. That revises the start update from one November to one March of 2020. That's the that's the date the date that you're saying. Yeah, pardon me 2021. Thank you. So, moving that back. In the next five months, we are hopeful will give the stakeholders and the agency time to do all this very serious and important preparatory work of getting the first draft pulled together. These first drafts are vitally important and getting them right beforehand says everybody a whole lot of time later on. So, then we're advocating that in section for that be modified to address specifically the rule 2200 rules. And again, I'm happy to work with Jim to to adjust that language. The second part about the independent school rules is that it had always been expected that those rules would go into effect on one July 2022. Not always but it for the last couple of years that's been the understanding. And as you know, the census based funding was to go into effect a year earlier. At our February meeting we had a discussion about this and it was agreed that it's really kind of undesirable to have the census based funding going to affect in 2021 and have the independent school rules go into effect in 2022. At that time in February before all of this happened. The conclusion was on balance it's best to move forward with the census based funding 2021 and leave and leave the independent school implementation a year later, even though it would be nice to have them all together. There were other reasons not to do that. Now, of course, what you've done is for good reason, you've moved implementation of census based funding back by a whole year to 2022. That strikes us as a terrific opportunity. Now, if we could keep the independent school rules implementing at this time, they always have been IE 2022. Then you're bringing both the census based funding and the independent school funding together on online all at the same time, rather than having the LEAs having to deal with two totally different ways of doing things for a year. I just speak informally with Megan Roy about this and she concurs that there's a lot of advantage to implementing both at the same time IE. Now that you've moved back the census based funding in 2022. However, in your bill, and I presume as a result of advocacy by the independent school stakeholders in your bill you've moved the independent schools back a year also. Once again now they're out of sync. And to us that seems to be at the very least unfortunate. So our comment about your language in section seven in the piece that refers to sections 28 and 21 of Act 173 where you put in a new date of 2023. Our comment is that we question that. I don't think we're quite prepared to say we oppose it because we frankly haven't received testimony from the independent schools in any significant degree that would explain why they would advocate for this. So can I just clarify. That was just a little bit confusing so basically the way it was originally structured they were going to be in a year later. The way the current bill is with more time that puts them together. No, it moves them both back the year. But so that they'll be happening together or separately separately. You thought I heard you say you wanted them to be happening at the same time. We do. So yeah. I would like to have you not move the school independent schools back by a year with the result that they would both be happening at the same time. Because you're moving census based funding back to where independent schools funding was going to be. And, but apparently you've heard from or somebody has heard from interest groups that advocate delaying the independent school implementation by year. There are good reasons for doing so but we would say there are also very good reasons for making that happen as quickly as possible and keep having them both go online in 2022 at the same time. Let me just check with Jim. Do you remember what our reasoning was for having them at a different time. Personally, I think just a complexity of how this will work for independent schools I think people that may believe what we're trying to work all that out. The reason it got moved out now though by a year is advocacy by had a conline to standard education. Okay, so. Okay. Do you remember what their reasoning was for wanting to not be happening at the same time. I don't know. Okay. My impression is that they're not opposed to happening at the same time. My impression is that they're rather simply saying that they too will find it difficult to get everything organized because of this period of dysfunction that we're enduring right now. But I think it's fair to say that implementing and getting getting everybody on board with the independent school rules is not as complicated and undertaking. As is the census based funding which changes the universe for all Vermont educators. The the independent school rules first of all there are far fewer of them who are involved in in this work. And it's mainly the leas that would be influenced in the public side. So I Catherine James had a question. Good thanks and I meant to ask this about this and we were talking about this last week. So, are we talking about independent schools like BBA and St. Jay are we talking here about independent schools that deliver only special ed. Correct or is it Emily has a comment. Only the general purpose independent schools, the funding mechanisms for the special purpose independent schools are largely addressed in the current rulemaking but in some ways act 173 carved those special purpose independent schools out so it's hard to give you a clear cut answer but I can say pretty confidently that rule series 2200 is for general purpose independent schools primarily. And that's the big four in particular. My, my, as to how that works so the act 173 requires certain approved different schools to accept a student on an lea. I dropped IP on if recommended by the lea. So if the lea says that this is the right school for that trial, then the approved independent school has to accept that trial. Basically it's what it does a carves out though schools that specialize in special education. So it's for the job purpose schools, not for the special schools. So, so the history of this is that the big four had originally been given an extra year to make this transition. We were going to retain that extra year. Mr Carol is recommending that everybody beyond the same schedule and that the big four not be given an extra year. So it was originally staggered by a year. Originally the family went in your one that say your to the approved in school changes were applied. And that's just happening now in your current bill. Right, right. Yeah. But, and Mr Carol is saying, let's just have it all. Let's have the independent schools go at the same time. Okay. So I guess I would just say personally, I just need a sec to check that out with CBA. Emily, did you have a thought. So, one thing in direct response to representative change it's not the big four it's about, I would say 100 in approved independent schools that are in the same exact category as the big four they're all equally impacted, although they have smaller student population, certainly. And then, okay, I'm just having a very parochial moment right now please, please forgive me. Well, and one of the big four is right in your backyard so that's where your brain is of course. And second, the agency's written testimony request that all deadlines and act 173 be pushed back a year which would not be in line with what the state board is asking the consideration about capacity of the field was our main reason for making a really hard call. It's really difficult that the agency thinks that the independent schools provisions should also be pushed back one year. Those are incredibly complex for the us us that have tuitioning districts within them which is a majority of our us us still, even though we have some that don't tuition at all. And our concerns about capacity are even more serious there our, say our highest functioning supervisory unions and supervisory districts also tend to be those that would not be that would sort of be out of this second phase. So if you're chitin and county districts that are all a single unified district, they are the only ones that won't be impacted by these independent rule changes, and we're generally not worried about their capacity compared to some of our other areas of the state on any issue. So, so the agency thinks that everything should be pushed back a year. Okay, thanks. Kathleen these are this, this is critical questions that you're asking so don't don't be hard on yourself. Yeah, and then Peter. Yeah, so I just want to clarify. What year would independent schools be required to accept students on IEP's if they were sent by the LA. So the first year and the bill you have before you now, they would have to start accepting the students at this year 24. So for the 2324 school year. And does that align with this change. Is this is that with the proposed change that we're talking about that pushes out by a year. And that is, I believe what the agency supports. And the board is raising questions about the need and merits of that. We've heard from a lot of informally from LA's that they feel that keeping the independent schools, deploying the independent school rules at the same time as the census based funding is well advised. What would be 2324. It would be 22. Your bill says 2324 the, the board, but current law says 22. And the board is advocating that we stay with current law and not postpone the independent schools. Okay, great. Thank you. I think that that address some of my questions and what we're really talking about here is any approved independent school that can receive state tuition dollars. So when you so when Emily was talking about there being more than just the historic for it's any private school that's taking state dollars. This includes a requirement that if they're taking state dollars that therefore they also have to accept special education. They're students on ips. It's a really big step forward for the independent school community. Some of them have been some of them are built around that but the general purpose independent schools. And have played only a modified and moderate engagement with independent school with special needs children and this change. This is a game changer for them. It's a very big step forward for them. I can understand why the independent schools are uneasy about all of this. But it's, it's going to happen. And it's just a question of how soon. And our historic academies have have been accepting students on ips all along because they act as as our public high schools basically. But this would, this would also mean that tuition dollars going to Deerfield, for example, if they don't want to comply with our rules about accepting students on ips. Then they would lose their approved independent school status. I think not I see Emily shaking her head and I defer to her knowledge on this. Emily, the State Board only has authority to approve independent schools in Vermont. It may also recognize the approval status of other states. And so when we have questions about private schools out of state they're not approved independent schools are just private schools that Vermont students would like to attend with public dollars. We look to the status of that school, either under the regulations of its home state, or it's me ask approval, and the State Board and its rules has recognized that I guess it's nechi now not me ask the accreditation agency for secondary as equivalent to our Vermont standard so any school that has that nechi accreditation, we treat as approved to allow tuition to go to that school. So they really would be unaffected by ability of this to clarify to clarify though, I believe that the independent schools can agree to accept currently accept certain categories of special education it's not every single category, if I understand it correctly. You are correct madam chair there are 12 categories under their current rules of for special education services. Already of our larger approved independent schools serve nine or 10, maybe even all 12 of those categories so they're able to provide services to the vast majority of publicly funded students. But we can't say as a blanket statement that our academies enroll every student, regardless of need who wishes to attend with public dollars because that's just not always able to happen. It still would it still would identify defined categories. The changes in act 173 explicitly call for getting rid of categories, and it sets up a system that is really case by case student by student, the decision of a student's IP team and consultation with the approved independent school to and to enroll each student. The LAA determines best placement. Yes, first comes student choice, and then the IP team evaluates the practicality of honoring that student choice. That might even include pushing in services from the s us staff to that independent school in the most extreme case, and it act 173 does allow for that. I know there are no strategies that we can use to enroll that student in that school but it's supposed to be a very rare case. Other questions. Madam chair, if I may just summarize. So, we have of the of the four points we're making. One of them is uncompromised support for extending the rollout of census based funding, as you have proposed it to 2023. The second is serious questions about postponing. I'm sorry to 2022 serious questions about postponing independent school rollout to 2023 a year later and advocating that serious thought be given to holding independent school implementation to the same date as a census based funding IE 2022. And then to request that be addressed in the in the bill with regard to rulemaking with regard to the rulemaking is already underway the census based funding rulemaking we're asking that you stipulate that the public comment period end in December as opposed to May of this year. And that that would also include a language that allows the board to therefore exceed the eight month limitation of the APA rules. And then the second is to ask that for the rule 2200 series the independent school rulemaking that you change the must initiate date from one November to one March. Do you have representation on the board from the independent schools correct. The board has no designated representatives, we are all at large independent appointees with people that have background. I think at least one person who has some connection to an independent school, but we we don't we don't wear stakeholder hats on the board. So we have stakeholders to come speak to us and we certainly will expect to hear from the independent schools about all this. Okay. And have you reviewed this these concerns with the Senate yet. No map. Okay. Because they're they're they're beginning this weird we're just sort of working concomitantly because of the challenges we have in moving things forward with remote voting so it's a little bit of a head spinner for our poor ledge council but figure it out. We will take this under advisement and appreciate your being here and if you can hang out that would be great. We may have another question for you as we move forward. So, next on the list is Christian Murphy from development disabilities council. So Christian. Yes, thank thank you madam chair, can you hear me all right. Yeah. All right, so for the record, I'm Kirsten Murphy, and I'm the executive director of your state's developmental disabilities council. Councils exist in every state and territory and by federal statute our job is to ensure that family caregivers and self advocates are part of policy making when that policy is going to impact their lives. So as such we we spend a lot of time pulling our members and other families to make sure that we are informed by a broader voice. So it's not my opinion it's it's more reflective of the people that we that we talk with. We have monitored the act 173 advisory board very carefully I send our policy analyst Susan Aaron off who's an attorney to watch that process carefully. It is a very complex it has been a very complicated process that this I think that the state has gotten a lot of really wonderful expertise, especially from the legal aid attorney that chairs that group and very helpful to the state. It's also just a very complicated process that the average family would not easily access, have to say. So I can be very brief. The developmental disabilities council has been enthusiastic supporter of Act 173 because of the practice changes that it is predicated on multi cheered systems of support and positive behavioral interventions and supports. We agree that the process should be delayed a year. Certainly because of the current crisis, because there hasn't been enough professional development to ensure that schools across the board or really taking up these important practices that will allow the new funding formula to be the most successful that it can be. And then we're also aware that the agency is already additionally burdened by needing to figure out things like distance learning, how to deploy funding that's coming from the federal government through the CARES Act. And the people waiting study is also out there and needs to be addressed so that's, that's a pretty heavy lift for for the agency and its community partners. I came prepared to to with the thought that perhaps the board was was not going to be as supportive if they are of delaying the public comment period that is that is our main desire is that we give families an opportunity to fairly use the public comment period and it sounds from Mr. Carol's testimony that they are also supportive families and advocates have waited a long time to have an opportunity to address the special education rules and I think that delaying the public comment period to the end of December is is more than generous and that would work very well for for for families who are just completely overburdened right now. And that is all I can prepare to say today. Thank you. Thank you. Questions. Give an important voice in the in the process. So the current bill as drafted in the direction we're going in seems to be enough to provide room for the people that you represent to be. I believe it does. Yes. Okay, that's with the recommendations from the chair of the state board. Yes. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Any questions. So we did it. I miss you on a question a little while ago. I just I just remembered that was there. It just it was answered. Oh, okay. Thank you. And I will need to leave now because I have a zoom meeting with 200 parents this afternoon. So thank you very much. Wow. Thank you very much. Tracy Sawyer is you've been involved in this process for a little while here. Yes. I'm interested in your feedback on the current draft. Yes. So again, Tracy Sawyer is executive director of the Vermont council of special education administrators and thank you as always for having me. So the CSEA has always supported at 173 we also do support the delay as outlined in the draft bill. The bill straightforward and the delays. It delays all of the relevant timelines. MTSS is a critical component of this. And we already had concerns about the progress of the rollout of statewide and districts will now definitely need additional time around this component and more aware districts have undergone a complete redesign of the delivery of education, including special education services. And we're going to need time to understand what this means for the future. In addition with the financials finances so uncertain, we should not be changing our funding structure when we're also facing enormous financial implications of the crisis. It's the enormity of the COVID-19 impact on schools both programmatically and financially makes at 173 implementation nearly impossible and certainly not advisable if we want it to be implemented as envisioned and in fact not do harm. As you've heard the 1300 series on 2360 rules are currently open for public comment and VCSEA has been following these closely delay in the effective data the rules will allow the state board to extend the public comment period as you've heard about. And this is very important as well. We also think the independent school rules the 2200 series as chair Carol discussed will also be a lot of work related to how independent schools are to be reimbursed and how they will generally participate. So that's going to be a big area. I do agree with chair Carol that there has been a challenge with the block grant starting first for public schools and then independent school portion starting one year later. And this does continue it in this draft for us. It never made sense that we would change the fun funding and then not resolve the independent school issue caused by that staggered implementation. I will say in these unprecedented times Jeff Francis and Sue and Jay and I have met with Patty Conwin and in our conversations has agreed to the delay for them as well as it would be that they're also overwhelmed and you know as this is a period of dysfunction and things are very uncertain right now. But it's interesting you know to to think about for those of us who are around when this bill was passed the final Act 173 bill ended up being two bills put together so it was the census based funding component that particularly house education was working with on and then center education was working on an independent school bill. And so they were put together right at the end. And so some of the timelines I think that's part of the reason that there was a staggered timeline it certainly felt like you know for independent schools the requirement to take all special education children if the IP calls for it felt like a heavy lift for independent schools and and it is it was pushed out further than BCSE I had originally wanted the year that this past because it really is an equity issue about getting kids the services they need but we and it's getting pushed out again. I think we're just in such uncertain times that we feel like that's you know, I guess reasonable at this point if everything else is being pushed out. We certainly support the continuation of the census based funding advisory group it's been a key part of Act 173 planning and implementation and was critical in getting the rules in a place that really reflected legislative intent. There's been some really good collaboration from schools and advocates and independent schools independent schools have two seats on that census based advisory group. So, they've been. There's been a lot of good collaboration and Megan Roy is our member wrap and I attend all those meetings. And I think that they just been that's also been just a critical part of getting us to where we are. Right. So, I'm glad to see that included and I think that's really all I have to say the CSA supports the draft delay bill and the throws up Kate. Oh, I did sorry. And as well as the changes in the rulemaking as recommended by the State Board of Ed, other than the independent school change. Other questions Peter Conlon. Just curious, Tracy, if your group or if you know if the advisory committee has a position on syncing the independent school rules with the public school rules as the State Board is recommending. I mean, I think we would support that we support that what the State Board recommends the rules have just really been, you know, we pay extra attention my members to the rules and so there was so much work with the the rules that are open now. And again, we do believe that the independent school rules will also be a challenge to really figure out how they, they fit in the construct. But I think the importance of public comment the importance of people not having bandwidth I think there needs to be those rules are critical to get right. And so I think we need to be realistic about the time we need to get. I was asking more specifically about the board's recommendation that the independent rules actually don't be delayed a year, so that they're happening simultaneously with the public school rules. Yeah, I think we at this point we support an overall roll out you know delay in the specific timelines. As in this bill and I do agree with we would to support what Cheryl Carol talked about related to the rules. Thank you. Okay, anybody else I don't think I see anything. Thank you. Thank you. Representative James did you have something. I did sorry I couldn't find my little. I was panicking trying to find my hand. Tracy I'm sorry I wasn't sure I thought I heard you say that you understood the complexity of the rules around independent schools and that they might need the extra year. And then I thought I heard you say that you would support Mr Carol's recommendation that independent schools didn't need the extra year, and that everything should be synced up to the same timeline so I, I wasn't sure which way you were going. I think what I was saying was that we do agree that the whole issue about the staggered implementation was problematic and so that was something that we have been talking about. I agree with what chair Carol says it has been potentially problematic to have the schools move forward into the block grant and then having figuring it out for independent schools. So that that makes challenges with reimbursement and all those other things. I think what I said was that in this unusual situation, and when we met the other association eds with Patty common I think we understand that they feel overwhelmed. It's a period of dysfunction and things are really uncertain so it seems to make sense to go ahead and give them the idea of move everybody. I mean I think everybody's very uncertain for everybody as you well know. I'm still hearing kind of two things I'm still not not clear. I can't tell if you're saying that we should do it the way our bill says which is they have an extra year to do it the way your bill says. Okay, I'm just not at that what chair Carol talked about is an issue and something that we've talked about but we support what's in the bill around that delay. And that's the and that's what the aoe supports as well. Yes, yes. Okay, thanks. Okay. We'll move on to the principles Jay Nichols. Good afternoon everybody. Maybe I can make this even more complicated. Okay, I'll try not to. I'm just going to go back to the principles for the record Executive Director of Vermont Principles Association. Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding consideration of delaying all aspects of 173 for an additional year. I want to make clear I think I'm the only one testifying today that's a member of the census based advisory group. Testimony today does not represent the advisory group as we have not been able to meet officially discuss this issue. Although I suspect we will all support the delay and I think Megan has talked about how she's talked to each of us online or offline excuse me. We do have some testimony from her online. So first of all not part of my written testimony but I want to add in here. John's request for language in the bill. Jim and Emily think this is the way to go. Not withstanding the eight month limit of the rulemaking process for this bill to allow for appropriate opportunity for families and individuals to weigh in on 173 implementation rules. I think that's a fantastic idea given these times. I think we should. And I think personally I think it would be better if it was actually in this bill, something that said not withstanding BSA, whatever that law is, we're going to extend this for eight months. So I like that idea a lot. I think it'd be good for people to have an opportunity. We want to make sure, especially that's very near and dear to our families when we want to make sure they have plenty of opportunity to comment on any any rule changes. I've advocated for 173 as you know, I believe with proper implementation, especially in terms of changing structural practices can be a game changer that will make a huge difference in learning of our most vulnerable children, not only those receiving special education services, but any students who struggle academically. If we can make short implement the law with the flexibility school leaders and teachers need, and the opportunities will be there to really make a positive difference for these students. I also believe there's two parts of this law in my mind. One is the instructional changes. The other one is bending the financial increases of special ed. And I think that this law has the potential to bend the curve on special education spending over time. It won't lower spending over time, but I do believe it may work to lower the increases of special education costs by allowing districts more options to effectively meet the needs of our students. But unless instructional prices change, the goals of law are not going to be realized. And for instructional practices to improve professional learning and training as other people have spoke to is required. I do not think at this time that districts are ready to effectively implement these changes in practice at this time. Right now the COVID-19 crisis is front and center and everything everyone is doing. At the very least, the last part of the school year is really very little, if any opportunity for best practices related to the implementation of 173. I think the AOE is 100% correct in advocating for an additional year before implementation. And quite frankly, we may even have to delay even further down the road if we don't have the thorough training provided to every school district in the state as necessary. We don't know what's going to happen. We don't know if we're going to be opening schools in the fall right now. I mean, hopefully we will, but again, we have to be thoughtful about that. So I think this has to be a priority right now. It can't be a priority. So for those reasons, I fully support a one-year delay of all aspects of 173, the Census-based funding special education law. Quick testimony, any questions? You don't have an opinion that you don't have an opinion on the independent school. So I do. My original opinion I testified to this three or four years ago was I thought everything should start at the same time. And I was outgunned on that, obviously. I do now, I actually would disagree with John's assessment. And the reason I would is I think that the public schools that are going to work with the independent schools, they need more time because of that, giving them all the time to get to where they need to be and then having the independent schools implement the year after. I think that's a strategy now that I would actually support. So I've kind of changed a little bit on that just because I think there's going to be enough on the plates of the publics that there's no reason to rush to add the independence of a year earlier. And you're also a fan of continuing the advisory group. Yeah, I just I'd like to be able to get off it before I retire, but you know, yeah. Okay. The questions. And we'll move on to Jeff Bannon for the teachers in the A. Good afternoon. And for the record, Jeff Bannon from Vermont in the A. And like Jay, I too serve on the, the act 173 advisory group. And it's been a good group. And we do a lot of good work and there's a lot of work to be done. I am. I'm going to, I'm going to perhaps be the person who drops the skunk in the middle of the table here when it comes to act 173. What you last. This timing is everything. So we, we, we, when act 173 was passed in 2018, it was passed with a lot of fanfare. A lot of hope and a lot of questions and those questions were to be answered by the, by the advisor group. And that group is working through those questions. And I, this should be not a surprise to Emily. I testified in Senate education a while ago about this. I, I, we are very concerned about the rollout of act 173. And I disagree with the secretary of education in this regard in that the overarching impetus behind 173 was not about finance. It was about practice as Jay just alluded to. And in fact, the, the DMG report upon which act 173 was the, that was the foundation of 173, not the UVM money report. But it was the, it was the DMG report that they worked with 10 or so schools. They did some incredibly high quality work intensive professional development with staff in those 10, 10 or so schools. And that was the impetus behind 173. In other words, we understood that if you had to change the system, you had to change the culture and the culture was how we delivered services. And if we're going to change those services and the delivery of those services. We need to actually do train people. And it's not just a one or two hour training session or one or two times, one or two day sessions. I believe that DMG has testified before your committee a month or so ago. That it was, it's, it's several years of intensive ongoing training, followed up by more training thereafter, in order to change the culture and the practice. So we've not done that, just to be very blunt. A lot of reasons why we haven't. And certainly now during the COVID crisis, we're not doing it at all. And for good and valid reasons now. But certainly we think that a one year delay is insufficient. And here's the skunk the room we're pushing, we're believe we believe that there should be an indefinite delay in the implementation of 173 pending complete and full roll out of professional development for staff across the state. So they can actually change their practice and change the culture. And then you back into the finances and how you change the payment schemes. So that's, that is the skunk of the room that I'm dropping here. We think indefinite delay is the right approach, given all that's going on now, given what needs to be done in order to implement fully 173. And it's going to take several years to do that, you know, given DMG's testimony to this to your committee, a month or so ago. So that's, that's the, the sum of art art of my testimony, I'm happy to answer questions or maybe a lot of questions that I raised for you. It's no secret we've not been thoroughly pleased with the rollout of 173. We're trying to make sure that the acts 173 advisory group continues, number one, I think it should continue to make sure that PD the professional development is delivered in an effective concrete manner in the around the state, so that everybody can change their practice and then we can change the finances. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions and go from there. And I guess my question is, if an indefinite delay puts no pressure on anything, it just sits there. A delay keeps the conversation going. So I'm unclear why you would, you would not keep the pressure on. Well, I would, fair enough, that's a fair criticism of an indefinite delay, the indefinite delay would be timed and pressured with it. In other words, it's effectively saying to, you know, we're going to stop 173. You need to pass a law to say that. But in place of it, we're going to require schools to do X, Y and Z. And those targets would have to be met on a regular ongoing basis to professionally develop educators so they can deliver the services in a different manner. So there would be, I guess, announced targets in an indefinite delay bill of 173, thereby keeping the pressure on to change the culture. We actually think there is some good out of 173. We supported it. We had a lot of questions. A lot of people had a lot of questions, but we supported it because we thought it was in the best interest of kids to change how they practice how the services were delivered. For kids on special on IEPs and kids who were not yet and hopefully never on an IEP. That was the goal, right? To get us to change practice, deliver services in a different way for all kids across the board so that we could reduce the number of kids on IEPs or certainly reduce their needs. And I think that's still a lot of a goal. We support the goal, but we think indefinite delay and implementing that with targets to achieve the goals of back 173 are necessary and thereby keeping the pressure on. So I guess another question would be, you know, when I look back to the development of that bill, one of the people that was really sort of moving forward with it was the former deputy secretary. When that position was eliminated, there was there was a sort of loss of that direction or loss of that power. So do you think that what we need is, you know, another position of the agency. address this. Yeah, I haven't thought of that I think of my neighbor Karen Edwards who retired a couple years ago so she was doing that kind of work. And with her, just before all of this happened, we were able to speak in person. I bumped into her and so I think that the, there's been a loss at the agency. And that's understandable and I think they're trying to and have filled those gaps and I think they're working in that direction. But there were certainly a lot of, I mean, I'll just speak to Karen and a lot of history and a lot of knowledge dating back years. And I think that's not easy to replace. And I think people are coming on board. There's a lot of challenges right now with special ed in the remote learning environment and people are getting up to speed quickly, and that world. But as to this, I think, you know, I think everybody needs a little bit more time to get up to speed. And that's why I think certainly a delays is what's necessary at a minimum. Any questions. I did not have my hand up. Your little blue hand was right up. Yeah, I don't know. It's not, I'm looking at my thing. It's not up. Well, maybe, maybe it's me. It's been maybe four. Okay. So, so committee, there have been some things brought up. Oh, yes, Kathleen. Yeah, Jeff, I'll try to see if I can word this succinctly but so if you think about, if you think about the professional development that's required and then the funding switch. And then if you think about the things that we're asking schools to do in terms of time and and and resources and energy basically. If we, if we took you up on your suggestion and did an indefinite delay, and then asked districts to get really serious about the professional development and getting teachers ready for this massive practice switch. How do you think the burden on them would change. I, I guess what I'm trying to get at is how would it just put things off. I guess I'm just trying to dig a little bit deeper into Kate's question. Like, right. Would they still be looking at a lot of work that they'd have to be do that we would expect them to do this coming year or would it be like we're going to give you a break this year but like how do you see that I guess in practice really rolling out. So a couple things. And I'll try to address it and if I miss it. Let me know. I tend to agree with Jay. I think one year delay is good. It's better than the not. But I think in the practical realities are in this Corona COVID environment. I think we may be looking at a two year delay at a minimum. I'm suggesting a longer delay to give schools and educators time to actually get trained and ready to change their practice. Teachers are necessary for the large part compliant and they try to be compliant and they work with kids and and and their administrators to do what I think essentially is the right thing to to change how they're they're going to deliver their their practice. And I think in that regard. They will change. They'll do the PD necessary. It may take some time and as DMG said it may take two three years of fairly intensive training to change how they think and deliver services but that's okay. I think they will do it. But given that when we do go back to school and again I'm with Jay on this I hope it's in August September of this year. But I'm not so certain now. Or if it is it's going to be look very different perhaps. I think there is a lot of work that teachers need to do immediately now in in May to get ready to bring kids back. I think I've testified to this committee before about this more recently. The kids are coming back. They will have more challenges and educators in schools will have more challenges than ever before. We the social emotional needs kids who suffered trauma not being in schools of late and so I think we need to get folks educators trained teachers support staff principals superintendents everybody's got to get some some high quality training we're working with NFI to do some of that may get some webinars going for educators. And so we're trying to do that training that that would be related to the Kona return and then backwards on or following that then I think you'd have to do the 173 training there after but I think the priority frankly ought to be getting everybody ready to welcome kids back into school whenever we can do that and safely and to meet their needs of which there will be a plenty. Yeah, maybe that I'm maybe that I'm trying to draw a comparison that really isn't apt, but I was thinking about a lot of the testimony we heard this year. Or I guess maybe just some of the anecdotal stories we've heard about proficiency based learning and how it's been such a great success in the districts where the educators had a lot of professional development and training around it, and how it's backfired and been really poorly received in schools where that was not the case. And so I'm just wondering if this applies at all, or whether when it comes to act 173 the funding switch just needs to happen, and then the practice will follow or whether we should be trying to learn the same lesson here, or maybe it's just not relevant. I think it's perhaps relevant and dragging into the PVGR conversation but I do think that that there's wisdom. No, no, that's fine. I think there is. I also want to make sure that we're not using our time to move off into a, you know, a totally different area so Kathleen I think we're going to like to hold on that question because it's. Okay, because I wanted to talk next about the reading wars. Just kidding. That was a joke. So I do think there's some some wisdom to training and the difference here with 173 I'll go back to that madam chair if you don't mind. Thank you. Is that I think, unlike in many other instances I'll say it that way, where a lot of time a lot of times we use money to change behavior. In this case, what we're trying to do is change educators behavior and how they deliver services to kids. If we don't get this right. Those who will suffer truly will be the kids and the highest need kids, and I think that's a that's a bridge too far. We need to make sure that we train educators and that was the in fact that was the, the foundation again of the DMG report upon which 173 was built. It was changing the behavior first, and then getting to the finances. And I think that because we all understood in 2018 that that was necessary. That was critical to the success of kids, you only get to be a third grader once. And we needed to make sure that we got you the services you needed as a third grader, and not just change the funding behind it. So Rita, and then Peter, and then what I'd like to do is have an opportunity for us to talk about some of the potential changes so Serita and then Peter. I, um, so when I read the DMG report, I don't know if it was two years ago I was really hopeful, you know, about addressing some inequities with children and, you know, and then the waiting period. I don't know about, you know, that where those inequities hadn't been addressed or looked at the 20 years on really concerned I understand everybody is doing the best they can. I understand we're in an unprecedented time but I am really concerned about delaying. And I know the patient especially with the practices I don't know what would need to happen but beginning to delay, you know, when to implement those practices as soon as possible, because I mean you're talking about a kid in kindergarten by the time in sixth grade would be when we're beginning, possibly to implement, you know, the, the best practices in the DMG report so that's really concerning to me and I know the committee is really quite tired of me talking about data. But I feel like we're also having this conversation without having any, I don't have any understanding as to where Vermont children are at in their grades and proficiency. And, you know, it'd be really helpful for me to get like a baseline. I think we have the data I'm not asking, you know, to create it I think we have it but just have an understanding of where what the baseline is in terms of proficiency or Vermont kids. What that probably will look like delaying a year and then, you know, then again extending the implementation of 173 another year I mean, I just feel like we just can't have those kids just wait, you know, to get their needs or their education addressed and I don't know what the answer is but waiting indefinitely is very, very worrisome to me. This is just waiting this is just delaying the funding formula. I thought it was the practices because of the professional development. Well, I think you're both right in a way. We're trying to change the practice that should go on. And so with the delays in the funding but we're not hopefully not delaying the professional development and I will say that, you know, what I'm hearing from the world is that they haven't had much if any PD when it comes to act 173 to be very blunt. I, when I met with a group of teachers, just prior to this whole, you know, pandemic, this health crisis, I asked anybody to raise their hand if they understood the numbers 173 in that order. And I got like one or two people to put their hand up and when I said act 173 like one other person put their hand up out of a group of probably 40 or so people teachers. And so the vast majority of teachers don't even understand what act 173 is in most schools. And that's worrisome to me it's worrisome that we're going to change how we fund something that most people don't even know what it is yet. And so that's, that's why we're concerned. And why we think it delays is all the so important. It doesn't mean that we wouldn't keep or try to train people. It's just delaying how we fund it. We want to, we, you know, represent Austin, I agree with you, we believed in the goals of 173. We just required some training. We want that to go on. I know it's, it's concerning to me. You know, for the children, you know, for the kids that may not be getting the skills and instruction that will help them advance. That's a little hard to lose our literacy bill. Yeah, I know. Peter Conlon. You know, I'm very sympathetic to what Jeff is saying. We have obviously heard plenty about the lack of sort of state implemented professional development. There's a lot going on in the districts that are thinking about this and can frankly afford the professional development so it is going on. I think if you were to ask that same group of teachers that Jeff was talking about, if they knew about MTSS and some of the other facets that act 173 is supposed to be built upon that they would actually know what we're talking about. We're taking our gas or feed off the gas right now a little bit because of this delay. I hate to take it off indefinitely, especially with the rulemaking and a lot of the sort of administrative stuff that has to go into this. I think I'd like to see that, you know, on the delay that we're talking about. But if the field is not ready. You know, when we feel it could be or should be, I think we should address that at the time but I'd hate to have us take our foot off the gas too much just in terms of getting rules done the work of the of the advisory board and all that and I'm in complete agreement that if you say indefinite delay was that really take the pressure off and you know people can just simply stop worrying about it. What I'd like to do is just take a minute and look at some of the recommendations we have to the current draft and I have to say, Jim, I'm not sure if we should just be listing these as things that we want. We'd like the Senate to consider as well or whether we should draft language and I'm just not sure I, I don't want to get ahead of them in this but I would I would like the I'd like these issues on the table with them so I guess we've been just drafting language, be efficient because I'll see what you want that way. Yeah, I think I always reverse I have it. So, I guess I would suggest keeping going with that approach to the state. Okay. Good. So we have a couple of things on the table one has to do with the changes in rulemaking recommended by the State Board of Ed. And I Emily I checked with you that agency is okay with that right. Can't remember. Yes, that's the extension of time for rulemaking on the current rules that are open now we're in agreement with that. Okay. So I'm maybe Jim you probably I'm taking better notes than I have so the current the language that the State Board is talking about is is a little bit different. So for extending those rules, John mentioned through the essay, for 3C. I have to look that up but yeah, it's easy to extend those those rule that rule period out eight months or out to December 31 of this year. And then secondly, I think he wanted to delay the rulemaking for independent schools to March 1, 2021. And I'm hearing from hearing John, John would like to keep it as all the same time I'm hearing some others that would that would not committee. I'm going to propose then that we stick with the stick with let me put this out we're going to stick with the plan that they're they're happening a year later as as is currently addressed. John did you want to say something. I understand the committee's wish to do that that's fine. The, the, that leaves nonetheless the need to delay initiating rulemaking from date of one November to one March. And since we didn't actually hit that part of the bill Emily. Yeah, you're muted Emily. You could alternatively change the year on that November one date to 2022, which would be even more time than the board is asking for, or sorry, it would be 2021. November one 2021. So committee do we want them to sort this out. You guys go back in the back room and get come up with a language. Okay, Jim. Is that okay with the committee. Let's see. I guess what I have now is to have to know what the date we're moving to is November one 2021 or March point 2021. So, so I need to say that again. All I need to know to drop this is whether you want to protect the independent school making rule to March one 2021 or to November one. So how many would like to just keep it as it is, as it's as recommended by a bunch of folks. Are we talking about two different things here, one being deadline for rulemaking and the other being the actual implementation. I think that what Jim was talking about is where what do we want to do with the independent schools correct for rulemaking for rulemaking. We decide to keep the day push up by a year. So that side, not for rulemaking. We have a proposal from John Carol, to Carol to move it to March one 2021 and from Emily to move to number one 2021. So if I get a day I can draft out the way. Would you concur with July 2021 and and just get on with it. That is for the beginning of rulemaking. Nothing to do with implementation. I think our committee is is, as I look around, I think we're looking for the people that are really on the ground with this to come up with what's best there. Tracy, did you have a comment. Sorry, let me unmute. Yeah, I would agree with chair Carol's recommendation, even or even July but I think having some more time. I think the rules are taking a lot of time and they have to be right. So, we would like to thank her. Yeah, Jim, what does that do to that wonderful calendar that you've made in terms of these delays these additional delays. So the additional delay is already reflected in the calendar for when the grant funding starts and for when the rules apply in schools. That's right there, talking about. We're talking about a topic here that's not in the chart because it's quite, quite narrow actually. So it wouldn't affect this chart further. Peter, I would just add support. Those folks sorting out this state I don't think it has much impact on what we're talking about. Yeah. These are some details that I'd like the people that really know the differences to sort that out. Okay. Okay. Kathleen, are you. I think it's fine. I just wanted to make sure that nothing important was changing on the fly. So if, if, if all the important deadlines are just moving in lockstep or staying as they were in lockstep that's great if what we're talking about is, is minor and it's not going to have a big impact on anybody and all the important people are working it out that's fine. Okay, so you'll, you'll work that out and talk to Jim, John and Emily and that'd be great. Is there anything else that I've forgotten? I have notes scratched here. Okay. Thank you very much. And I haven't given this new draft to Megan for a yet. So we'll just just do that. And at the same time, we might just just wait a minute and see what the Senate's going to do. Are they taking it up this week or not. Jim, do you remember. It's not on the calendar. Okay. Well, the calendar for course today, no, the calendar for there in this week is still being developed. Okay. All right. So we'll, we'll keep working on this and this is not an April, this is a May. This is a calendar year may that is. Bill. Okay, so are we done with this topic. I have, if so, I have a question for you. What, as you might have noticed, there's a little dust up happening with Vermont State colleges. A couple of challenges over there. And do you have, I was looking at the, I was looking at the personnel chart that we got in January. Is there anybody that is identified there that actually works on issues related to post-secondary institutions? The person who had been doing that work also had a part of their FTE doing school construction. So two things that for us did not come up as frequently as other issues. And that person left the agency in the fall and the position has not been filled yet. The capacity at the agency on that right now is probably don't go knocking on your door for too much. Well, lucky me, the secretary has designated me as the point person on post-secondary issues until we hire that position. Okay. Excellent. Good to know. We're standing by watching. And I assuming that at that, at some point, there may be something before our committee. Anything else? Okay, we can stop that topic. I just wanted to do a little bit of committee discussion. Related to budget delays and just give you an update on where we are with that. We have we have some superintendents and school board. And I think we've got one superintendent and some school board members coming in. And we've got superintendent Sam and we have both coming in to talk to us. These are our members of the 19 districts that do not have a budget. So I'm just going to give you a little bit of a conversation with the Senate last week is that they're pretty well down the road on a bill that would just offer a delay with the ability to use your 2020 budget. That's an option that they're pretty far down the road with. Working on trying to get some flexibility to consider something more along the line of what we were discussing in ways and means. So to that effect, Larry and Peter and I have worked a little bit on looking at perhaps something that would incorporate the Senate option as one way of going. Or another one that might involve. Authorizing school boards to, to develop their own budget. And they're a little bit different lines, whether it was a defeated budget or a, or one that just hadn't been presented to voters yet. So we're working on that language. Is that something does that sound okay at this point I was going to bring this forward on Friday once we get this developed is that does that sound like it's in concert with you folks that that's a direction you're interested in considering that. I ended up taking a better look at this thing that we got from from Chloe and not everybody is, you know, as much of a geek on the details I am but I finally got a better feel for what the major differences are in these districts. I'm hoping that by Friday will be able to get an idea about what some of the impacts would be in offering some of these options to school districts. So I'm trying to look at it not as an either or the Senate possibility in ours. Perhaps two different options that that we could pursue. So that's where we are at this point. Yeah, so we'll be, we'll be bringing that forward on on Friday. So with that, I'm wondering if maybe Dylan would you be up for just giving us a little update on what you've been doing. As a trustee. Yeah, I don't know if that's something that that we can discuss now. If people hear me. Yes, you got you. Oh good. I'm doing an experiment today using my phone to call in because I have bad bandwidth here, even in the suburbs of Burlington. So what can you do. Yeah, just a quick update. I know I think most of the committee was on the call Friday when we just talked about the Chancellor's proposal, which for the state colleges which he put out shortly before our hearing. I think it was oh no no it might have been right around the time of our hearing at any rate I just mentioned in passing that something was coming out. Of course that that proposal went forward. And people have had some time to respond to and react to it, including the governor and legislative leaders, who have expressed some concerns about the immediacy of it, and have suggested there may be some way to provide some financial support. So the state colleges system could find a way forward, and then there could be more discussion about how best to proceed with public higher education in the state going forward. Those conversations are ongoing. I want you to know that the state colleges system board met yesterday. We have very long sessions starting at one o'clock that had a very concentrated public comment period that ran for several hours or so. And we met late into the evening close to 10 o'clock and had a lot of discussions. No decisions have been made yet the way the governance structure works. The Chancellor has the ability to propose kind of like an executive with the legislature. And then the board has the ability to decide and to propose counter proposals. If it wishes to using the administration and others to develop that and research and so forth. So this is an ongoing discussion. Clearly, if your inbox is anything like mine, you've heard a lot of feedback. And I just think as a personal advocate, not as a board member speaking but as a legislator who cares about public higher education, I think the advocacy and interest is fantastic. And I think it's something like it, even on staff, but I was working in the speaker's office, just seeing it galvanized is really important and that student voice and community voice, faculty voice, and folks from all walks of life who've come forward to weigh in on this it's really been powerful and moving so as a legislator watching this and as a member of the board. I just want you to know that it certainly feels to me like we have decisions coming. The decisions may become legislative decisions. So certainly as the Education Committee I want you to all be aware of that. And if you have any questions individually or with groups of people constituent send them my way. I've had a great time talking to people. I hate to talk to people in a crisis but I love to talk to people when something is of great importance and it really it's been an honor and a lot of CCB and Johnson. So we'll work through this, but mostly I want you to know that I'm here's a resource if you have questions or comments. Thank you Dylan in the, the statement from the pro tem and from the speaker. What they're recommending is an economic analysis of the impact of the closures on the three host communities, as well as the development of a one year bridge to keep the camp campuses operating while they're thinking about the future of the campuses that are more thoughtfully considered and the establishment of a multi institution work group. So this there's some things that may be coming forward. I mean, while been looking at some of the national trends in relation to low birth weights, student, you know that the demographics and those challenges as well. Along with what we know would be a pretty significant economic impact for those communities hit by this. So we'll just be standing by and Dylan thank you so much we're lucky to have you on as a trustee to keep us informed on the thinking there. This is not a new one. This is not a new problem Peter Collin. Hey Dylan. I'm just curious about timeline. You guys have scheduled your your next meeting for Monday I think is that right. And, and if you're actually Yeah, we're calling a meeting as well this evening to have some board deliberation. I do, you know, I don't want to predict the future I'm just one board member, but given the significant interest from the legislature and governor. Well, we are in a position where we need to make decisions in an expeditious fashion. I don't think there's a set timeline at this point because we now have multiple actors involved. And frankly, I think as a legislator speaking here, it's really prudent and wise at this point to slow it down a little bit and see what we can develop. When you get the congressional delegation involved and start talking about federal money, the money, the governor, it's a much broader conversation. So we're going to continue to work and put a lot of time into it and I actually think I look a little tired today because I was answering last night. But you know what, it really, again, this is one where we all have to step up. It's so important. It's statewide. I'm looking around at the paint here. Everyone has some, some CCB or some VSC in their backyard. So I'm not sure if we will have a decision next Monday. I know there was a lot of publicity on that. It is a fluid situation. Thank you very much Dylan. So I met with the chair of the board and on the other day, a bunch of us met with them. They presented their PowerPoint and indicated that it was between representatives of the United States and they indicated that the bridge would be about 20 to 25 million. And we are hoping that maybe our federal delegation will be able to help with that. That's one of the avenues that they're looking after that. So while we figure out what to do. Yeah, Larry. Yeah, Dylan. The issues that comes up is going into the reserve, which is not that much money. I think you have 8.7 million. And the issue came up. The, some of the colleges that have closed did exactly that. I mean, they, they burned through their reserves pretty quickly, which I think is evidence as we see it. That means closure. The other thing that was brought up is accreditation, which is another serious issue, as you know, I'm sure that you're discussing these in your, in your meetings, I hope you are. But, you know, $12 million a month to run this system is a lot of money. I'm not. I have reservation reservations about sustainability. The last thing we want to do is put the whole system in insolvency. So I'm just bringing that out. It's for your, your discussion, if you can, or I'm sure you are with your trustees, I'm sure it's on the table. David mentioned he had talked with UVM, whether or not I, I brought this up about 10 or 11 years ago to people around here. In terms of having a University of Vermont at Castleton the University of Vermont at Johnson. So those discussions were brought out as well, but I'm just saying again that, you know, there are ways to move forward, I guess. Lynn bachelor. I'm sorry, Dylan. Let's just go to Lynn and then respond to it all. I just got an email from Kendall Smith. And this is regarding and it was to address to the Northeast Kingdom. I'm hoping, hoping that the governor, and he's saying that the legislature will have to be a partner in the funding conversation. And the governor can propose to move money around but it ultimately will be for the legislature to incorporate into one of the various money bills. And I guess that he does not. He's very strongly for keeping the college system open, if at all possible so it says some but doesn't say much. How's that. It's, it's just something I think to make us feel better up here because somehow the Northeast Kingdom always seems to get the short end of the stick. So I will behave and sign off. Thank you. And we do know that I think the proposal, he's considering cradle cradle to career so keep in mind where he may be looking. Okay. Serita. And you know, we really just about essentially done so we can go up pretty soon, but please go ahead Serita. Yeah, just one question and about the boards are that have not the districts that happened past a budget. I'm just wondering are the boards in the process of developing a proposed budget or they, I'm just not sure we are where we are in that process and just one more question about, I think what came out of coven 19 for me that was glaring in the rural communities was equity and access broadband. And I'm just, we don't need to have a discussion now but that is, that is glaring to me, but and it's not just for coven 19 it's in terms of access to educational opportunities so I just wonder at some point and will we have a conversation about that or is this the committee that would have that conversation. That's it. Peter common. And then what you can you just wrap up and then we're going to close. Sorry, I forgot to lower my hand I'm all okay. Okay. Emily thank you so much for joining us and sticking with it with us. Jay and Jeff and Tracy as well. Have I missed anybody I don't think so. Yeah, Jay. As we move forward with the two bills that are before us we will be keeping in mind the status of their amount state colleges and see where it is that we may end up weighing in. Thank you everybody. I will see you Friday.