 Welcome to Senate Education Tuesday, May 9th, 2018. I want to thank Senator Gullick for her report today on H461. We are, it was great, it was very helpful and well thought out. We just have that one question that I saw Senator Hardy in the hall. She's going to talk a little bit to the Secretary of State's office. We've also heard back from the Secretary of State's office with no objections just saying it's a policy. It's a policy decision and hopefully we will, I know I'm talking with Senator Hardy, she too is hoping everything, not looking to slow anything down. So hopefully that will move and that gives the House plenty of time. We have two pieces of business, S138, which we'll do side by side today, an act relating to school safety. And we're going to, we've been asked, as things are in back and forth with different negotiations, we've been asked to take a quick look at H452 and act relating to expanding apprenticeship and other workforce opportunities and we have Cameron Wood from the Department of Labor coming in just to talk about a brief section of a bill just to make sure that we're on, we're all moving forward going in the same direction. With that, Ms. St. James, you have a side by side for us on the school safety bill, helps us to understand what we put in Senate education and then what House education proposed and I think we may have one amendment to this bill as well. The good news is, and I believe the Chair of House Education is aware of this, so if we get this out on Wednesday or Thursday, they can take it up and hopefully concur during the veto override session, just an option that we have going forward with a couple of things. With that, Ms. St. James. Thank you. We all should have a Beth St. James Office of Legislative Council, so I guess we'll just look at the side by side I prepared, which is S138 as passed by the Senate. Ah, APBS. I didn't know what that meant. Thank you. As passed by the Senate. I can't take credit for that. And the House Education, when I prepared this, it was just their proposed amendment, but I believe it passed third reading today this morning, so this is the language that you will be getting. Thank you. There were no further amendments. The first section, there was the House did make us, I don't want to call it small because it is a substantive amendment, but you'll see it highlighted there on the first page. So remember, this is the requirement that there be an option-based, or a options-based response drill policy and conduct a requirement that schools conduct those. The Senate version, the language you all passed out, highlighted in yellow is the policy shall require option-based response drills, including fire drills to be conducted following the guidance issued, et cetera. The House's version adds, so the policy shall require age-appropriate, so they add the term age-appropriate option-based response drills to be conducted following guidance issued by the Vermont Schools Safety Center jointly with the Vermont School Crisis Planning Team. That's the same. And then their second addition here is, they shall require notification to parents and guardians not later than one school day before an option-based response drill is conducted. So the requirement is the same except now there's a modification that the options-based response drills need to be age-appropriate and a requirement that notification goes out to parents before the drill is conducted. The rest of this section remains unchanged. They do not make any changes to any of the other pieces here. Page three, if you want to skip to page three, section two, remains unchanged. The House did not propose any changes to section two, nor did it propose any changes to section three. So on page four, the very bottom of page four, section four, they proposed a lot of changes. So keeping the title... So on page four, okay, yep. So the highlighting here is not going to be super helpful because it's a little all over the map and... I have no highlighting on my page four. There is none yet. Okay, great. I'm just at this whole section. There is a little bit of highlighting to point out. Big changes. Thank you. But I will do my best to point out differences here. So the House is proposing to keep section four the title of it the same. So creating a new statute called behavioral threat assessment teams. But it adds, it changes it. So we'll remember what you passed out if you want to look at page... Yep, I see. Actually, we're going to go all the way to page seven. Okay. This is your subdivision A. What you all passed out is a requirement that if schools are currently using an option-based response team, then they have to provide training and collect data. The House amendment requires... I'm sorry, not option-based behavioral threat assessment teams. The House version requires behavioral threat assessment teams and then creates a whole bunch of policy and procedure behind that. So we're just going to... I think it would be most helpful to walk through the House language and then I'll orient you to corresponding concepts or language in the Senate. So the House version starts with legislative intent section, there's subsection A. It is the intent of the General Assembly that behavioral threat assessment teams be used for the purpose of preventing instances of severe and significant targeted violence against schools and school communities, such as threats related to weapons and mass casualties and bomb threats. The goal of these teams, I'm on page five, is to assess and appropriately respond to potential reported threats to school communities. It is the intent of the General Assembly that use of behavioral threat assessment teams shall not contribute to increased school exclusion or unnecessary referrals of students to the criminal justice and school discipline systems and shall not disproportionately impact students from historically marginalized backgrounds, including students with disabilities. So that's a piece of legislative intent. There is no similar provision in the Senate passed version. Subsection B in the House version in that right-hand column is a policy requiring the development of a model policy and the Senate version did not require development of a model policy. It just required training if a school was using it. So I've marked this as no similar provision in the Senate. So again, looking at that right-hand column, subsection B on page five, there's a definition of behavioral threat assessment to mean a fact-based systematic process designed to identify, gather information about, assess, and manage dangerous or violent situations. Subdivision two requires AOE in consultation with stakeholder groups, including the Commissioner of the Department for Children and Families, Vermont School Board Association, and Vermont Legal Aid Disability Law Project to develop and update a model behavioral threat assessment team policy and procedures. And in developing that model policy, AOE has to follow guidance issued by the Vermont School Safety Center on best practices. And the model policy and procedure shall require law enforcement contact in the case of imminent danger to individuals or the school community and shall address the following. So the policy has to include criteria that shall be used to assess a student's threat behavior, the process for reporting threatening behavior, the civil rights and due process protections to which students are entitled in school settings. We're going to go on to page six. When and how to refer to or involve law enforcement in the limited instances when such referral is appropriate, which shall not include student behavior that is a violation of the school conduct code but that is not also a crime, and the support resources that shall be made available, including mental health first aid, counseling, and safety. And then each school district and each independent school, so both approved and recognized independent schools, have to develop, adopt, and ensure implementation of a policy and procedures for the use of behavioral threat assessment teams that is consistent with and at least as comprehensive as the model policy developed by AOE. And then any school board or independent school that fails to adopt such a policy or procedures shall be presumed to have adopted the most current model policy and procedures published by the Secretary. The Vermont School of Safety Center shall issue guidance on best practices of behavioral threat assessment teams, and the guidance shall include best practices on bias and how to reduce incidents of bias developed in consultation with the Office of Racial Equity. So that is the requirement that AOE develop a model policy, the requirements of what should be in the model policy, and then a requirement that school districts and independent schools adopt their own policy that is consistent with and at least as comprehensive as the model policy. And then all of that will be based on guidance issued by the Vermont School of Safety Center. Subsection C, we're still on page six, is the most analogous to what the Senate passed, but it's not completely the same. So this is, Subsection C is on discipline and student support. So you'll see the Senate language on the left-hand side there was a requirement that behavioral threat assessment is not be used for punitive or disciplinary purpose. And then there was language about what would happen if a student was on an IEP or had a Section 504 plan, and that was a requirement that a behavioral threat assessment not replace the manifestation determination review process as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or State Board rules. And then if you shift to the House version, this is a similar topic, but it's different. It's consistent with legislative intent in Subsection A of this section. If a behavioral threat assessment team recommends, in addition to providing support for resources, any action that could result in removal of a student from the student's school environment, pending or after a behavioral threat assessment, the recommendation shall only be carried out in a manner consistent with existing law, regulation, and associated procedures on student discipline pursuant to Section 1162 of this title, which is about exclusionary discipline. And the same rules that the Senate version is referencing on pupils and exclusionary discipline, as well as federal, and I'm on page 7 now, as well as federal and state law regarding students with disabilities where students require additional support. So again, the Senate version specifically refers to IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The House version just references state and federal law regarding students with disabilities. And then further, on the Senate, on the House side, rather, on page 7, Subdivision 2, behavioral threat assessment shall be structured and used in a way that is intended to minimize interaction with the criminal justice system. Law enforcement referral and involvement may be appropriate only in cases involving threats, which will not include student behavior that is a violation of the school conduct code, but that is not also a crime. And then there is a training. So the next section of the House amendment is a training piece. And that is, that would correspond most closely to what was in the Senate subsection A, so what you started with in this section. So the Senate language on the left-hand side reads each supervisory union or supervisory district, and each approved independent school that utilizes the threat assessment team shall ensure the members of the team are seen for training, annually and best practices, as well as bias training. And providing the bias training, school officials shall consult with the Office of Racial Equity. And then on the House side, a very similar provision. Each supervisory union, supervisory district, and approved or recognized student-dependent school shall ensure behavioral threat assessment team members receive training at least annually and best practices, as well as bias training. And then the difference is the House version spells out very explicitly what needs to be in that training. The annual training shall include the... Give a question, Senator Blins. So is that training already in existence? Parts of it maybe, but I think it will make sense if we walk through the rest of it on developing it. The pieces might be there. So the annual training has to include rules governing exclusionary discipline, which is the, that's the official title of the state board rules and title pupils. The purpose and use and proper implementation of the manifestation determination review process. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other civil rights laws. The negative consequences of exclusion from school, the impact of trauma on brain development, and group bias training specifically focused on bias and carrying out the duties of behavioral threat assessment team. And then subdivision two, the agency of education and consultation with the Department of Public Safety shall develop guidance and resources to assist supervisory unions, supervisory districts, and independent schools in providing the annual training required under this subsection. In developing the guidance on bias training for behavioral threat assessment teams, the agency and department shall consult the Vermont Office of Racial Equity. So that's the training piece. The next section is data reporting and collection, and you'll see the first chunk above the highlighting. So I'm looking at subsection E on the House side, and D on the Senate side. That's all the same up to the highlighting at the very bottom. So both versions require that annually each supervisory union, supervisory district, and independent school report data related to completion of and outcomes of all behavioral threat assessments and manifestation determination reviews to AOE. And then at a minimum, the report shall include and the items one through three are the same in both versions. The names of the members of the team, the number of behavioral threat assessments and manifestation determination reviews conducted in the preceding year, and for each assessment or review conducted, a description of the behavior requiring assessment, the age, grade, race, gender, disability status, and eligibility for free or reduced price school meals of the student requiring the assessment, and the results of each assessment or review. And then the third item is the number of students subjected to more than one behavioral threat assessment or manifestation determination review. And then what we're going to walk through next is all additions, the House adding these requirements to the data collection. The amount of time a student is out of school pending completion of a behavioral threat assessment. Information regarding whether a student subject to behavioral threat assessment was also subject to exclusionary discipline for the same behavior, including the length of such discipline. I'm on page nine now. Information regarding whether law enforcement was involved in behavioral threat assessment. Information regarding whether the threatening behavior was also reported to law enforcement and any additional data the Secretary of Education determines may be necessary. That's section four. So that's the House's proposed changes to the behavioral threat assessment team that would be in the green books along with all of the rest of S-138 and the options-based response drills and the visitor's policy, et cetera. The rest of this is session law for implementation of the behavioral threat assessment team. So any questions before we dig into that? Okay. So section five, I'm on page nine. There's no similar provision in the House bill. There was no kind of transition language. But section five in the House version is behavioral threat assessment team's implementation. So the first subsection here is direction on the timing of the creation of the model policy. So subdivision one requires AOE on or before November 1 of 2023 to issue for public comment a draft model policy and procedures for use by the behavioral threat assessment teams. On or before December 15th, AOE shall issue publicly posted and communicate to school districts and independent schools the final model policy. And school districts and independent schools currently using behavioral threat assessment teams shall update and implement a policy on the use of behavioral threat assessment teams consistent with the model policy no later than the 24-25 school year. And then, so that's the policy piece and then the establishment of the team piece and training is subsection B. So school districts and independent schools not already using behavioral threat assessment teams shall take all actions necessary to establish a team not later than July 1, 2025 including, so by July 1, 2025 they have to have the team in place. Prior to July 1, 2025 this is all the work they need to do. Identifying and training team members which shall include group bias training and the training requirements adopting a behavioral threat assessment team policy establishing procedures for proper, fair and effective use of behavioral threat assessment teams updating and exercising emergency operations plans and providing education to the school community on the purpose of the use of behavioral threat assessment teams. So that's what schools who do not currently have a behavioral threat assessment team need to do before July 1, 2025. And then subdivision two on page 10 school districts and independent schools that are currently using behavioral threat assessment teams shall certify compliance with the training requirements that we just walked through on or before the first day of the 2023-2024 school year. And then AOE and the Department of Public Safety shall issue guidance and offer training necessary to assist school districts and independent schools with implementation of the subsection. So AOE and the Department of Public Safety have to help everyone get up and running. And then subsection C on page 10 requires AOE to establish guidelines necessary to collect all of the data that we just walked through. And then each supervisory union or independent school that is currently using a behavioral threat assessment team has to comply with the data collection requirements beginning in the 2023-2024 school year. So if you're already up and running then you have to start giving the data. And then there's a report requirement at the very bottom of page 10 it just says reports and subsection D. So we're going to move to page 11. Subsection one. On or there's three reporting requirements here. On or before January 15th, 2024 so the beginning of next legislative session. AOE in consultation with the Vermont School Safety Center has to issue the written report on the status of the implementation of the duties and requirements of the behavioral threat assessment team statute including the status of the development of the model policy updates to training and guidance documents updates on training and professional development requirements for behavioral threat assessment teams data collected or voluntarily reported to the agency or center. The guidance issued training developed and measures implemented to prevent a disproportionate impact of behavioral threat assessments on historically marginalized students including students with disabilities to ensure that use of behavioral threat assessment does not increase use of school removals or law enforcement referrals for these populations as well as plans for future training guidance and any grants or funding secured to support the implementation or proper use of behavioral threat assessment teams. So that's the first reporting requirement. The second reporting requirement is for not this coming legislative session but the following. So on or before January 15th, 2025 so the beginning of the next biennium. AOE in consultation with the Vermont School Safety Center shall issue a written report on the status again of the implementation of the duties and requirements of the behavioral threat assessment team statute including the status of data collected from supervisory unions and independent schools in the 2023-2024 school year completion of the development of the model policy and additional guidance training and other measures to prevent disproportionate impacts on historically marginalized students including students with disabilities as well as plans for future training guidance. And then the last reporting requirement is on or before January 15th, 2024 so next year. AOE shall submit a written report with any recommended legislative language from the policy stakeholder work undertaken during the creation of the model policy and accompanying guidance and training materials required pursuant to the behavioral threat assessment team section. So as those stakeholders are working on the model policy if they feel as though there needs to be additional language or law or changes to it, this reporting requirement requires them to come back and tell you about that. So the statute itself, section 4, would not take effect until July 1, 2025. And then section 5 is going to take effect July 1, 2023, this transition language and you see that there's all kinds of different due dates in there for when, depending if you don't have a team currently up and running or you do have a team currently up and running, you may have to start with different parts of the behavioral threat assessment team statute prior to July 1, 2025. But all of that transition language gets everyone online by July 1, 2025. And that was the change made by the House and they did not make any other changes to the effective dates. And in the Senate version, the section 4, the behavioral threat assessment team did have an effective date of July 1, 2024. So this just moves it out until the year. Great job. Quick question. I know that the names of the members of the behavioral threat assessment team have to be reported, but is there any requirement that says who or how many people have to be on the threat assessment team? I can't remember if that was in our version or any version. It's not. So in the Senate version, remember you did not require anyone to have a team. You just required training and the reporting of certain data if there was a team. And in the House version, the data required is the names of the members of the behavioral assessment team. I suppose theoretically the model policy may take into account who should be on the team or that. But even if the House or the Senate version specifies who should be on there. Okay. Thank you. I don't really have a question. I have some comments. Good job that I really want to thank the House. I did a close read on this last night. I really want to thank the House for the work that they did on this and the AOE as well. It seems as though they added some very deliberate and thoughtful guardrails and definitions and expectations of what these groups or these teams will do. And I'm really, really happy about that. You all have seen, I've had a part in my thinking about all of this. Originally I was just very wary of doing something like this because I was very concerned that it would target kids with disabilities and just kids from historically marginalized communities. Then the shooting happened in Nashville and I had to go to my local elementary school and speak to my fourth grade class about guns and safety. And it was hard to see the fear in children. So obviously our state and our country needs to grapple with and fix the gun issue that we have, which is completely out of control. And we also have to work on our mental health systems, which just exacerbate all of this. But in the end, I had suggested bias training and I see that it's in here and that's even been beefed up and given even more greater definitions. So in the end, I'm happy with the work that was done and I do think I will support this. So thank you for presenting it to us. Senator Williams. I'm just going to make a statement. This has a lot to unpack. And I think that it's almost in the too hard box for this year. I really think we need a safety policy, a school safety bill that protects the students. Because the clock is ticking and fortunately it hasn't happened to us in Vermont, but it could be. And I think we should do something, even if it's wrong right now, and then build on that. Because I really question whether AOE can do everything that they've got to do in here and the time period we give them. And that's all I've got to say. Senator Sheehan, where are you on this? And remember, we've got everyone thinking of this. We can concur. We can concur with further proposal of amendment. Either way, and timing is a little extra time because some of this can be approved finally by the House during the veto override. But I'm wondering where everybody is. I think I'll have a better idea by the end of the day. Okay. Clearly I have hesitations, but I also hear the points that are being brought up. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. My one last comment. Please. Just to reiterate what Senator Williams said. I really do hope the AOE will provide the necessary resources to get this work done and done well because we know in the area of resources there are some schools and school districts that are really struggling. So this was very important to the AOE, so I hope they can back it up with all the necessary resources that are required. Mr. Fisher, briefly, is this something the AOE can support? In terms of resources. In terms of its role, it's going to play in this. The RIR Ted Fisher of my agency of education, the Agencies Director of Communications and Launches of the Affairs, we would not have brought this proposal if we did not intend to fully resource it, both immediately upon passage as well as in the other years. We expect to be having some conversations about the out years with our partners at the Department of Public Safety as well as with the Governor's Office and may have additional things that we ask for next year that help us support in this work. We also are committing and I appreciate the support of the Office of Racial Equity and some others committing to do some robust stakeholder work. You see outline there. I also have a growing list of interested groups, including some groups who do not currently support you. We are interested in having conversations of this past. So we're hoping is, I hope is to do some of that engagement process understanding that there is provision in there for us to bring statutory requirements but also hoping that they might give us their best thinking in developing some of the things like model policies and training guidance and things like that. So yes, it's going to be a big job of work. I'm already talking about that and how we're going to resource it. I just, it is not finished drafting. It's hoping it would be by now. We will issue in written form. We'll be happy to speak to it in response to Senator Sheehan's question on Friday. Some testimony, informed testimony outlining how this fits in with the district quality standards which you directed us to establish last year which provides a regulatory construct for business management, school governance and facilities, school facilities and safety. And so this would be some place where we would have some regulatory authority under that construct. So we're going to spell that out for you as well. And that's a big job of work that we undertook last year that we're going to continue building on. So we see these as very complementary internally. I want to echo Senator Dulux's comments that House did a deep dive on this and did a really good job. And hoping that we could get somewhere where we could maybe not make a lot of changes but possibly send it back for the proposal of amendment. But we can leave it right now right there and we'll give Senator Sheehan some more time and Senator Williams some more time to review and consider it. Ms. Sealy. Sure. Ms. Sealy, good afternoon. Welcome to Senate Education. I guess this is maybe for the room. I think kind of getting mixed signals from people in the hallway where they're at, where they're not at. I thought we'd all sort of come to some kind of agreement. Can you just let us know a little bit about where you're at and tell us your concerns at this point? So for the record, Rachel Sealy, Director of the Disability Law Project at Vermont Legal Aid, as well as our staff attorney for government relations. Again, I'm sorry, I'm not there in the room with you today. You know, I think you all heard from me what my concerns are about behavioral threat assessments in the first half of the session. Since then, I think we've worked really well with the agency and with other stakeholders, including the Superintendents and Principles Association to add a lot to this legislation that while I'm still concerned, I feel like we've got some guardrails in place and some data collection in place that allows me to say that I do think, you know, understanding the important balance between needing to keep schools safe and school communities safe from really violent incidents and the important work of protecting the civil rights of the kids in our schools. I think we've really moved forward in a productive way here. One of the things that I raised with all of you early in the session was that behavioral threat assessment was not defined in this legislation. It is now defined. Another concern that I had was what types of threats are appropriate to use this particular approach with and what you have in front of you limits the use of this approach to severe and significant targeted violence against schools and school communities, such as threats related to weapons and mass casualties and bomb threats. As you heard, kind of in the side-by-side, there's a requirement for creation of a model policy with stakeholder involvement. We're not talking about mandating these teams anymore starting in 24. We're pushing that off to fiscal year 25, but beginning the data collection for districts that are currently operating these teams now in this coming school year. And I think that's really important because we will have at the end of the 23-24 school year data on how often these teams are being used, what students are being subject to these assessments, and we'll have real live information about whether the concerns that I have because of how these have been implemented in other states are playing out in our schools in terms of disproportionate impact on students with disabilities and other historically marginalized students. You also heard that there's expanded data collection requirements here so that I think we will have a really robust picture of who these teams are being used with, what the relationships are in practice to school exclusion and criminal justice referral. And that will allow you all to be able to make more informed decisions moving forward about how these teams operate and whether you'll want to further amend Title 16. I'm also really reassured by the significant training for anyone participating in a behavioral threat assessment team. The training is now no longer just how to do a behavioral threat assessment, but to really understand how these assessments relate to discipline, the manifestation determination review process for students with disabilities, civil rights overall, and how those apply in school. Issues around trauma and brain development that can lead to students having behaviors that may very well look like threats, but not be threats. And the consequences for students of school exclusion, as well as the bias training that you all had put in this legislation before it moved over. And that's all going to be required even before the mandatory implementation date. And so again, if that information, if that data is collected and we find that there really are some significant disproportionality or other kind of problems that lead to concerns about civil rights violations, you'll have that information and you'll be able to make more informed decisions moving forward from there. Great. And so I'll just finish by saying there is one area of ongoing disagreement and that has to do with the order of operations between a potential behavioral threat assessment and the manifestation determination review. And so what you have in this legislation is a direction for all of us stakeholders to work with the agency over the summer and come back to you with a proposal in January on how to resolve that disagreement. And I think that given that these aren't going to be mandated in 2024, that gives us and you the time to really think through that kind of thorny issue in a way that the pressure of the legislative session just hasn't allowed us to get there. So I still have the concerns that I've expressed to you, but I do think that what you have in front of you takes a lot of steps forward to create some guardrails. And I'm really encouraged by the engagement of the agency and of stakeholders in really wanting to work together to protect the interests that we all have both in keeping our students safe at school and making sure that their civil rights are protected. That was great testimony and a good review for all of us around the data collection, what's going to happen before it's implemented. Very helpful. Any questions from the ceiling? Comments. Rachel, I really appreciate it. Absolutely. Very helpful. Okay, committee. Anything else on this at this point? So if you have any thoughts and just need to take some action on it tomorrow. Okay, let's take 10 minutes and then Cameron will come in and join us for our last bit of business. Thanks. Welcome everyone back to Senator Education Tuesday, May 9th, 207. Our last bit of business today is on a bill H-452 an act relating to expanding apprenticeship and other workforce opportunities. This looked like something that government ops and others were going to partner with us on next year but I believe to give credit where credit is due, Mr. Ramsey you're just a hard worker and efficient and as is Mr. Wood you're able to together get this work done so to Mr. Wood and to Mr. Ramsey thank you very much. What we're wondering if you would do is just take us through this language give us any background that you think we should know and then the committee can just decide whether or not to advance this or not. The floor is yours. Thank you. For the record, good afternoon. Cameron Wood, Policy and Legislative Affairs Director for the Vermont Department of Labor and Jay Ramsey I'm the Director of Workforce Development at the Department of Labor and I've been in this role officially a week. I've been with the department for a year but before that I worked for the Agency of Education for 10 years as the State Director for Technical Education. That's right. Sarah Cox brought you over I believe. She did. So we'll try to be succinct and I'll kind of give a little bit of background of the reasons behind the bill and what's in the bill and turn it over to Jay to talk a little bit more in depth about the pieces that your committee may want to look at more specifically. This bill was one of the priority items for the department and for the administration when it comes to workforce development for the legislative session this year. If you look at our current apprenticeship package it is five pages long. It was written primarily in the 40s and the 60s and has barely been updated since then. Like most of the programs that we administer at the Department of Labor the apprenticeship program is a federal state partnership and that is a system that is constructed by the federal government and then administered by the states with funding coming to us from the federal government to administer and then the state having to make sure that all our laws are in compliance with the federal government so when you think about unemployment insurance workers' compensation similarly we have to make sure that we're in compliance with federal laws and regulations for the administration of apprenticeship. Apprenticeship goes back a long ways and Jay's got a lot of knowledge and information about how apprenticeship got started but for our purposes here we administer the Department of Labor administer the apprenticeship program if you will for the state. As I mentioned the statute is only about five pages long it's contradictory it's outdated and part of what we've been working on over the past year or so since Jay came into his role as assistant director is to modernize the apprenticeship program of the state and that's modernizing both the system that we use which we have done we're now modernizing a system that was designed by USDOL and supported by USDOL so we've transitioned it's one of the only systems we have at Labor that is modern and separately from that we have been working to try to modernize the statutory language to get us into compliance not only with the federal regulations regarding apprenticeship but also to really put in statute what is actually currently in practice for how the apprenticeship program is run. So this is a 52 page bill but I know that you know provides a lot of concern for you all as legislative members it's a lot of language here but the reality is the vast majority of what is in this bill is just codifying what our current apprenticeship practice is so it gives a definition section we have no definitions in the current apprenticeship statute it designates the department as a registered apprenticeship agency it's makes some very slight tweaks to what currently exists called the apprenticeship council creates an apprenticeship board and it kind of clarifies their advisory role and the information the department has to provide to them it requires that the department have a five year strategic plan which is in alignment with the federal government's requirements requires that we provide the general assembly an update every year on all the program metrics and parameters around the apprenticeship program on an annual basis the house commerce committee did a lot of work in those areas to make sure that we were providing information that you all as the legislative bodies would find valuable and helpful we did a lot of work with the house commerce committee because we want to try to incentivize new occupations new programs in apprenticeship and we want to try to incentivize diversity in those programs a lot of what we have is you know middle aged white males and electrical and plumbing and so we recognize that and we want to make sure that we're doing a lot of work in diversifying the apprenticeship programs throughout the state so the vast majority of the language here is about the setting of the administrative structure requirements to register with the department what has to be within the apprenticeship standards how we can potentially deregister an apprenticeship program if it's not in compliance with the requirements we do not have the authority arguably in statute to do that right now another key piece in this bill is regarding ratios so currently the way the statutory framework is set up because there's no identification where you can do something different it's a requirement that there be a one to one ratio of apprentice to master or journey worker we've gotten a lot of requests from employers I think Jay would probably say a significant majority of the requests or questions we get in are from employers who want the flexibility to be able to bring on additional apprentices where they can't because they have to have that one to one ratio so the statute would allow under given circumstances for that to go to one to two and then would allow the practitioner of labor with advice from the board, BOSHA, etc after we do a review to allow for an even greater ratio of areas there if it makes sense so there's a lot of really good pieces in this bill that we think will allow us to build upon the apprenticeship program that we have again codifying current practice getting us into compliance with federal regulations and also getting us into compliance with some federal funds that we have already been awarded and also allow us the opportunity to give us a greater support when we apply for additional funds from USDA while moving forward because we can articulate that we have this new modern language what potentially you may be interested in or what brings it here is when we were in the house there was a question raised about the last sections of the bill which have been printed off and provided to you is regarding pre-apprenticeship youth apprenticeship and then the work of the department will be collaborating on with other agencies including agency of education higher ability and others around those pieces I will just pause and turn it over to Jay to say we think that these pieces are critical because currently there is as we mentioned the apprenticeship statute five pages long there is nothing in statute that even defines what a pre-apprenticeship is or what a youth apprenticeship is so the last kind of key piece that we feel is necessary for this bill to move forward is really a worker protection piece so we have individuals out there who are in pre-apprenticeship programs and that they come to us and say I'm in apprenticeship I've done this and there is no authority or no registration with the department so when they try to transition into an apprenticeship program they're not given any credit for the work that's already been done etc so for us this is just as much as codifying what's current practice but also protecting apprentices and others as they're moving through the system I'm going to pause there because I should really turn it over to Jay so just at a high level what is a registered apprenticeship it's a company's own training program it's made up of basically three components work process schedule or training outline it's for a term not less than a year not more than five years it takes an electrician four years to learn that trade before they can sit for licensure the second component is related instruction and theoretical coursework that is 144 hours for every year and the bridge between those two things is the supervisor or mentor that's helping the apprentice understand how they connect what they're learning on the job with what they're learning in the classroom next question 144 hours can you give us an example of what institutions would be providing those showers sure so a company can have that training done in-house but it has to be with a journey worker someone who knows the content and can teach it it could be delivered by CTE center through adult CTE companies would be paying the tuition for people to participate it could be done through the state colleges but basically any post-secondary institution can play a role in providing the coursework online it's a very flexible program and these currently exist at the state colleges right and so it is a company's own program there is another model where it's a multi-employer program so community college of Vermont is the sponsor of a few programs Vermont technical college is the sponsor there are community organizations that can be sponsors like the Vermont Association for the Education of Young Children they sponsor an early childhood educator program so we have a very diverse kind of universe we just don't have the rules to help us govern it in a way that is manageable you're welcome so companies create their entry requirements for their programs they may say we need someone who has a high school diploma they may say we need someone who has this level of math skills the pre-apprenticeship is intended to help prepare people for those entry requirements so it might be a school it might be a non-profit it might be an adult education and literacy provider it might be the community high school of Vermont in the correctional facilities we can have all kinds of entities playing that pre-apprenticeship role the youth apprenticeship is intended for I guess I should probably also say we do not have apprentices who are younger than 16 that's a federal law and so when we're talking about youth apprentices we're talking about people who are 16 and 17 who are probably still in school and they may be employed by a sponsor of a program and the sponsor says we'll support you we will sponsor you to learn this occupation as an electrician we recognize it's going to take you longer than four years but we're committed to helping you get through school and get into the apprenticeship program at the end of the apprenticeship program the Department of Labor issues we issue a certificate of completion of a registered apprenticeship and because we are part of a national system that credential is recognized across the United States and so you'll probably hear these paths going to college versus getting a registered apprenticeship because we have partners like CCB and Vermont Tech involved CCB for instance builds college courses into their programs and so they're not mutually exclusive paths and as Cam said we have most of our apprentices are between 16 and 35 they're mostly white men but we do have older folks coming in to be apprentices and those are the people who are changing careers these are the people who maybe just decided that they want to learn something new so we have a wide range of people who are apprentices and even a wider range of people who could be apprentices with this I have another question sorry resource does a really good program is it all tied to any of this or do you work with them at all? so resource we just approved in the last year commercial carpenter program that serves multiple employers in Chittenden County that's sponsored by the associated builders contractors of New Hampshire and Vermont and resource provides the related instruction when I was the state CTE director we approved credential part of the curriculum for construction programs called NCCER and resource delivers the NCCER credential so we're contributing to the development of career pathways through stackable credentials that are delivered through the registered apprenticeship program do you want to talk to the last section of the bill the career pathway alignment piece yeah so as and this will be on page 49 the bottom of page 49 so as we're writing this recognizing there are all kinds of things that we maybe don't know or can't anticipate but we want to signal that we're aligning efforts and creating a space for us to work with the agency of education to work with higher ability formerly vocational rehabilitation and other state partners to enhance these career pathways the agency of education has a career pathways coordinator I've included her in some of the trainings that the federal government have given so we're aligning our efforts this isn't something that's been articulated in our overall nature so this is sort of a new space for us to continue to align our work I think the other thing I want to point out is on page 39 I haven't talked about this in other committees but on page 39 we don't have to I'll tell you what it says this is in the section for standards of apprenticeship and it's articulating what it is that we need to collect from apprentices when they register with us and one of the things that we need to do in terms of alignment is align our data collection so that we can match data and our labor data can help educations data in their reporting of outcomes so this section says we're going to collect from an apprentice who is between the age of 18 and 25 what high school they graduated from if they went to a tech center which one and those data points help us match or they will help us match data with the agency so that the registered apprenticeship program can contribute to the outcomes that we have to report for HESA Representative Brennan you're pronouncing it correctly Brennan thank you for joining us we're calling this work is there anything you want to add or anything you think we should know as it relates to anything that you've taken on so Representative Brennan Jericho from Commerce and Economic Development we worked with Jay on this and last answer and the thing that I wanted to point out to education is there are pieces in here that require the sponsor the business to work with the PBGRs and personal learning plans for the student and it's only a couple of lines but you sit in there and I just wanted to have education to be aware of that where is that section 1124 is the section about youth apprenticeships so yes pitch 40 so youth apprenticeship is again a new area for us from a policy standpoint the definition that existed that is an earlier section and this description comes out of federal law that's been passed by the House has yet to be taken up by the Senate it's the National Apprenticeship Act and they define youth apprenticeship in a specific way they define pre-apprenticeship in a specific way we've lifted or borrowed those definitions and the structure and put it in here because our laws have to align with the federal laws the way that this would work it's still an employer it's still an employer's program the employer is working with the school and the student would be an employee of said employer because there has to be an employment relationship in order for it to be an apprentice and the what this doesn't speak to is the role of the local school board it doesn't speak to the need for the employer and whoever is going to be working with the apprentice to have a background check we didn't address those things but I would point to page 51 section 2 which addresses a report I think in our work with house commerce there is a recognition that there is still some work that we need to do this was oriented around the equal employment opportunity requirements and how that process works and a need for us to work with us of racial equity but within that structure we still have to report to the legislature on January before January 15th on changes that we would want to make and I committed to house education that we would include this these things around how youth apprenticeship works in that report and so whether those requirements would live in a revised version of the statute that comes in next session or whether those live in policies that the department of labor creates as a result of implementing the program those are the two avenues that we have to address those major concerns I just want to point out two things on this piece in particular there was a technical amendment on the house floor that did add the house education committee in this committee as far as that report so we do have to report back to you but there's nothing in the language that gives the department any authority to alter any of these local school district requirements I kind of stray out of my lane a little bit here I haven't worked in AFC of education etc but this just gives us the ability to register these entities as an apprenticeship program and they would sponsor which could be an employer or may not be an employer would come to us and it would allow us to them if you're looking at page 48 we can require them to provide us with information on how competencies or proficiencies are aligned between their high school education and the apprenticeship program and states which graduation requirements will be met and we have the authority to do this now and so again I think that was one of the concerns was about us somehow superseding the authority of these local districts when it relates to this I don't read the language as providing that at all it's saying we can register you if you don't meet the requirements of said local board and we see that in your registration process then we have the authority to say no you need to go back get your ducks in a row come back to us with registration just gives us the authority to say you check these boxes I think the plan and practices as Jay said we will need to work out a little bit of these details with AOE and others and how this needs to look that will include local partners as well the House Commerce Committee wanted to be specific in adding language in the bill that included local partners so that's how we are interpreting this bill I just want to say thank you House Commerce this is so great I'm so excited to see how this flushes out and gets out there in the world what it will look like but it seems one great work thank you just any objections to this moving forward then tomorrow we'll make a motion of Senator Clarkson we'll do this or Senator Rockinsdale and we'll move this language and I think we're going to report then back to you is there anything else for me okay great and just very quickly I was going to say I think David Hall your legislative council was going to send the second by section so you should have three steps ahead that way you have to I want to read through the whole 52 pages alright thanks everybody thank you all committee anything else for today seeing none we look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow thank you wow