 Hello, and welcome. This is the Education Committee in the Vermont House of Representatives. We're also joined by the Ways and Means Committee. This is Wednesday, April 21, and we are taking testimony this morning on S13 and act related to the implementation of the people waiting factors report. And we're first going to hear from our educational associations, and I'd like to start with Jeff Fannin of the NEA to hear your testimony on S we're looking at S13 language and S13. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good to see the committees and both committee chairs. Good to see everybody with a steady internet feed. Let's hope. So once again, Jeff Fannin from Vermont NEA. Thank you very much for giving me a few minutes to talk with you today about S13, the waiting study as I know it, the waiting legislative task force. The NEA very much supports getting the weights right and correctly established to offer consistent with the Brigham decision and equitable opportunity to a public education. I'll make a few brief points in support of the bill. As you just mentioned, Madam Chair, poverty is a key factor. And we believe that you must truly account for those children growing up in poverty that includes providing appropriate financial supports for such students. And those need to be directed to account for poverty. UVM study supports this and likewise the other recommendations from the UVM study should be implemented as well just briefly. The rurality as it was noted as also as a critical factor that may sometimes go with hand in hand with poverty but not necessarily it's not an absolute. So the rural nature of schools also plays a factor in this. We also talked about a new factor related to trauma and Vermont NEA held a conference in May of 2019. About on this very issue and more than 200 education stakeholders attended and everybody agreed there I think in general terms that students suffering from trauma need more resources, and the need is growing. And recently the post pandemic need is going to be greater some mental health experts are saying upwards of 30% of students returning the fall this fall. We'll have suffered some form of trauma during the pandemic year, 30% and that's a incredibly high number and we just want to want to put that out there for you to think about a little bit as we proceed here. So I think that's one of the things mentioned of Act 173 is also important. Connecting Act 173 from 2018. I think it was 18 teams I'm getting around my data. And the task force is critical because when fully implemented Act 173 will fundamentally change how special education and all education services are delivered by reimbursing schools based upon based upon a block grant for students and need, which also affects the waiting discussion. And let me be clear Act 173 is far from full fully implemented. As the bill required educators get trained and how to change their education practices to better serve all students, and that training has not yet happened. As we discussed the weights and 173. We also should be cognizant of Act 173 is PD this professional development void that must be addressed addressed before schools convert to the block grant. And finally, the waiting study implicates the tax structure commission's recommendation to abolish the residential property tax to fund education. And it's great to have the Ways and Means Committee here today. The commission recommends funding education through the income tax for residents. As such changing the funding via the weights should likely be done in concert with the change to an income tax with which to fund education. They go hand in hand. So S 113 therefore should be amended to add some specific mention of the tax commission strike tax structure commission's recommendation about converting to the income tax to pay for education. So with that I'm happy to answer any questions we support S 113 to be clear we think it, you know some slight modifications might be helpful but with that, I will take any questions you might have. Thank you. Just a reminder, it's 13. Did I say I was s 13. Thank you. Yes, I'm sorry. I noticed that you mentioned adding resources and I just wanted to just clarify. I think we're the committee is definitely looking at the interplay between taxpayer equity, spending resources and outcomes, which are not necessarily addressed directly by this that there's still some question. Do you would you agree that that there's a somewhat. We don't know how it behavior will change yet. Well, but I think that certainly we know that. You know the poverty issues real and you know it's been around in my entire tenure that we've talked about the nature of poverty and the insidious nature of poverty on students and getting education so schools are being asked to do a lot more than they were. Frankly when I was in school a long, long time ago. I was partly related to poverty and how we need to address it so resources for that specific need are real. And it might help with outcomes it might help with other things. Taxpayer equity as well. Thank you representative Maslin. Thanks. Jeff quick question how is the 30% kids likely experienced trauma during the pandemic arrived at. I got that from Dave Melnick at NFI I'd have to ask him I don't know specifically but they're, they're working with schools right now, a lot of and they're just estimating that a lot of kids have suffered some, you know, pretty severe forms of trauma throughout the year it's been a tough year for, for students working at home, a lot of cases, you know zooming in, it's not been a great year for a lot of kids, some kids have done it, some kids to be honest have done better. They're not in the zoom environment or the remote environment, but I think a lot of kids have not done so well. And a lot of kids are in, you know, frankly schools are the safest place for a lot of kids. And, and we know that. And so if they're not in a safe place all the time, they're exposed to other traumas and other issues that are going to show up in the schools doorstep. I guess if there's any more specifics that come up from time to time I'd like to hear about them. Thanks. On the trauma issue. determinations factors on things that play in things that work things that don't. Thank you. That's all for now. Thank you. Every center of tell. In response to that, you know, we've, I've done a little bit of work on adverse childhood experience over the years. And we know our baseline rate is about 14%. Okay, so statewide 14% and it's higher in various subgroups. So with the pandemic and what we've seen nationally, it's not the least bit surprising that we would be up to 30%. I think you're, you're right represent until. Represented point. Way as a means party over here in house head. Jeff, are you saying that one thing I've been wrestling with is this idea of differentiating the things that poverty often results in, or that are correlated with poverty like aces, and then the actual, you know, the experience of kids, such as aces. And so I'm wondering if you are asking us to pull that apart a little bit better or if you're just reflecting specifically on the pandemic and the experience of the pandemic and how we have to bring those into this conversation. Well, the, the study talked about trauma, generally I think and accounting for it in some way so I think that's what the task force would, would have a discussion about. And I'm just reminding folks that we are in the middle of a pandemic we're coming out, there's a light at the end of the tunnel and it's not coming at us, it's not a train coming at us, which is good. But we're still in it, and trying to get out of it and when kids arrive fully and you know I say back in the fall, fully, you know back to normal if you will a normal school environment next fall. I think we just need to be aware that a lot of kids will have had a rough year, say that this task force that's included in S 13. I think should look at trauma just generally, and I think that's what the study talks about. Thank you that the main focus for our interest today is in getting recommendations for that task force what questions do we want to put before the task force that are going to help us move forward. Thank you. So, when students are not in school over the summer. If the for children who are in poverty, would it would it be helpful if the waiting were to change if there were more resources sources for them than to be in a safe place in July and August. I understand correctly your question represent voting. I think the answer is yes, we support robust summer programs and have. I think they're important I think the real challenge this year frankly is going to be educators are pretty tired. I met with you know Jay invited me to meet with some principles the other day and I asked him at the end. After talking with a group new principles. How you doing. And to a T I think they're all saying they're tired and I think that that is true from superintendents principles educators in the buildings. Everybody's pretty tired so represent a vote I think yes we support robust summer programs I think this summer might be a challenge to get people to do that work. I mean they need a break they're tired. I was asked to two teachers yesterday and they were just, I was asking them to do something and they're like I need a few weeks after the school year. And so we'll just have to schedule a little bit later in July, but is people are tired and summer is the time when people typically recharge their batteries. And if we're just going to keep school going it's not a really a recharge I think it's. So robust play based summer program is the way to go. Get kids out of their environment if it's unsafe into a safer school like environment will say that. And we did recently appropriate, I think it was, it was several million maybe four million I think that it's gone to after school and that is a requirement of Essar that local funds going to Essar and again just to remind everybody that those numbers the implications to the different school districts are based on title one. So the money will be available. And after school is not just looking at academic programs is looking for those other programs that that. Yeah, I did not mean to say that I thought that teachers would be teaching over the summer. I'm, I'm talking about what Mr. Fanon said at the very end of what he said which is, you know, play based, nurturing environment for children over the summer, which could happen with with more resources available. And then a second comment is, I don't think I understand the focus now during this conversation on outcomes, when that is not a focus under the current funding formula. I'm not sure I raised the issue but I understand that we, you know, outcomes are part of the equation we want to make sure the kids are getting educated. That's, that's what we're about and large measure. So if it's something we need to measure, then that's good I think you're right though this bills about how we resource properly for students and their needs and schools needs. So, do one more question from representative James and then I'd like to move on to our next with witness. So, and I'm assuming representative masculine that does what we would call old hand not a new hand. Okay, represent James. Thanks chair web and Jeff thank you so much for being here. Here just a little bit more if you don't mind. I guess I've been coming from a starting place of wanting to narrow the scope of the task force and have them focus on implementation of the weights and I understand. I think about why you feel it's important that they also consider Act 173, but I'd love to hear just a little bit more about that. And in particular, though, the larger question of the tax structure commission and how we fund sort of our entire education system and the shift to an income based. context. That one seems like a bigger question to me and I wonder why you feel that's, that should be part of the tax forces scope as well. I'm thinking for one second just to let you know that Megan Roy will be coming in later and she will be speaking specifically to the census based funding group issues related to waiting. Yeah, but go ahead. Right. It's a good question represent James I think the answer for me at least Megan may have a different one later. I also serve in that advisory group. So there are many opinions I'm sure on that. But as we change the weights. We're also talking about changing how we fund for for you know under 173 to block grant. If the task force is going to look at how we resource. I think we, I think it's necessarily appropriate for them to look at both. If we're we haven't fully implemented 173. So let's look at it while we're doing the waiting discussion as well I think we can. I think we can do two things at once and as well. If we're the recommendation of the tax structure commission is we ought to be looking at funding education through the income tax for residents and abolishing the property tax. Then I think we ought to, you know, incorporate that into the conversation as well we're talking about how we fund schools. And I think they, they're all interrelated. So let's just look at one and then change others without incorporating that in the conversation doesn't seem very healthy to me if you will to the overall system we might get something right and wrong in one way and just do the complete reverse and something else. So I know that our committee members of our committee that have not really seen what the census based funding changes to see what that is and I will get some testimony so people understand what what we're talking about. So I think we're going to have a discussion to, you know, the funds going up in one district and down in another to zero some game. Um, thank you very much, just Shannon, and you're going to stick with me. You can. I actually have to hop and I apologize I will be back if I can. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you so much. Jay Nichols, principles association. I'm really impressed that chair answer was able to get her whole committee into the room to such a small health said room very nice job. For the record Jay Nichols executive director of the remote principles association. I've testified on people waiting UVM study a number of times. I try to keep my comments focused on provisions of s 13 today the act relating to the implementation of the waiting study for the waiting report. Section one findings. And I'm using the word I a lot I usually use the word we, and I'm using I because this testimony is really from me, based on conversations with a lot of principles, but it's not, it's not coming from, you know, a formal meeting of the of our executive council or anything like that. So I agree with the findings I support the new cost factors and weights as outlined in the report. I also agree that the current weightings have no real basis any statistically valid way. I don't know where they came from they've been there as long as I've been around, and I don't have a problem with a phase approach to revisiting or revising the waiting formula. In fact, I think, I think you're going to have to do that. In terms of section to the task force. I fully support this being a legislative task force. This is the most appropriate group that should be doing this work at this time. I think the task force needs to focus on the implementation of the people waiting factors report. It should not be in my opinion a rehash of the report, or the validity of the results of the report. I support the task force recommending to the General Assembly and action plan and propose legislation. And in terms of the listed responsibilities and know we're supposed to respond to that so first, I don't think the task force to touch the weights themselves. That work was done in a comprehensive cohesive manner by the General Assembly and her team, including some national experts and I think to touch any part of that, you're kind of messing with the whole thing. In terms of categorical aid I think you implement the weights themselves before you look at any other aid and I don't really don't mean any other way but in terms of categorical aid and I think the reason you do that is we need to see what this is going to do. At least mock it out a little bit for a couple years and take a good look at it. In terms of the third one I think this is very important extra spending capacity should be used on supporting students and school districts that have been historically underfunded, not additional tax rate breaks for local citizens that shouldn't be the purpose. If the idea is that students have not received the resources in the past that they should have received, then we need to try to mitigate that concern. Vermont tax structure commission report. I don't really think the tax and capacity and educational property tax rate rates recommendations impact on that whether you switch to an income based funding system or you stay with the current system or some hybrid of the two. I don't think that will change the pupil waiting mechanism that will change how you raise the revenue to provide the resources that are budgeted by local districts. I fully support the goal of promoting equity and using the financial impact during the transition from our current waiting system to the more statistically valid system outlined in the UVM study. Six, I agree with the look into adjustments for non operating school districts and CTEs. I just don't know enough about non operating school districts to know what the impact might be so I think that is worth some extra study. Seven, I see no reason to study funding formulas in other states. Other states are constantly looking at our funding formula. And I think this works already been done. Number eight, maybe the most important for me at this time, regardless of what happens with Act 173 I think the weights should take place. We really need to consider in this process and this commission will need to consider is the maintenance of effort provisions that are in federal law in relationship to special ed funding. So their federal requirements related to the amount of money we spend in the state and in school districts for certain purposes, essentially with a few exceptions, we need to spend the same amount of money, or more, or we risk the possibility of losing some federal funds. There's ways around this but we're going to need people with important financial expertise, so that if a district is going to receive less money and census based funding from 173, and also receive less funding through their local property tax or whatever mechanism we're using, we just need to make sure that we're not missing that maintenance of effort number. Number nine, whatever is implemented needs to be consistent with Act 16 and 68 and meet the constitutional requirements of the Brigham decision. So in terms of consultant D, I think that makes sense. Again, as long as the focus is on implementation and not essentially trying to do another study or change recommendations and awaiting study that's already been done. In terms of collaboration, we will collaborate obviously with the task force any way that we can. Section three talks about additional legislative action. We agree that legislation needs to be passed the implements changes to make sure all students have equitable access to educational opportunities. And finally, section for the props. I'm no expert in this area but I would think in a implementation plan and kind of like represented to from Franklin County fiscal conservative boy, you know, I think it's a lot of money if you're just looking for somebody to consult implementing the plan. If you're really looking at redoing the whole thing and this is any you're just going to kind of almost redo the UVM study make it even broader, then I think 150,000 is not not going to cut it you're going to have that more money to that. So I would respectfully submit that if you focus on implementing plan, you probably get more than enough money. If you're focused on making a bunch of changes to the education system as part of this, then I think you're going to need a lot more money. And that's it other subject to questions. Thank you. Yes, thank you. I'm just wondering how, let's say the weighting study is implemented weights are changed how do we measure scientifically how do we measure that that action actually had the outcomes of increasing educational opportunities for students in poverty ELL students. How do we measure that that those populations increased in their access to education and and we're successful. Well, it's going to be over time, but there are certain metrics that we can look at. There are things like graduation rates. How often students in certain groups end up going to college. How often students in those same groups end up going to college in comparison to some of the groups and other states that don't have a equal opportunity funding mechanism in place. So there's a lot of metrics you can look at you also can look at things like assessment, things like aspect even though I don't put a lot of stock in standardized assessments, they are one tool that you can look at. So there's a lot of things like that that we can look at and see are more of these students closing the gap between them and students of other that have had more advantage. Now there's statistical correlation between how well a student does and the funding system of their school, regardless of whether the student lives in poverty or not. So for example, if a student lives in poverty and Essex where I used to be superintendent. They are surrounded by a lot more opportunities oftentimes and a student who lives in poverty that may live in the Northeast Kingdom. And so because of that they may get extra supports through that system that happens to be in place in the school. So we see across the country, students in poverty that are in well financed educational systems do much better than students of the same poverty level in a system that has more poverty within the system. I hope that answers your question. It's a tough one. You muted yourself representative Austin. I saw that study and it's interesting to me that the neighborhoods that children also grow up have a huge influence. So, thanks for referring to that. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Jay, I've been thinking about the suggestion that districts be essentially required to use any new spending capacity that they might gain through changes in the weights. And just from your perspective, what would that, how would that be accomplished. What have you any thoughts on that. That's why I'm really happy that it's a legislative task force that doesn't name the VPA to it. I don't have a magical answer to that I think you're going to have to look at some type of mechanism that shows the previous per pupil equalize spending in a district, compared to what the equalize spending per student is, you know, in the year when there's a higher tax rate and I don't know this is going to be a Brad James question along with Dr Colby, and I'm not even sure if you're going to be able to get at it legislatively, we may have to get it at it as much through the court of public opinion as anything else. And I don't have a solid answer for that and I apologize for that representative trophy. No, that's okay. I don't know that there is a good answer for it, but that's why I'm just shopping around for for other thoughts that thanks. Yeah, great question. Thank you. Okay, representative Conlon, and then we'll move on to. Thanks and actually following up on that question. And Jake, could you comment a bit about in terms of enforcing the idea that okay you have extra taxing capacity now do you want to see that translated into student outcomes or student opportunity. Do you use of a kind of maybe I call it more robust enforcement of educational quality standards, or even the old school public school approval standards. Yeah, I think going through a regulatory frame is a very good idea representative Conlon and it may be something that we work at through the state board, and maybe just and also with support from the AOA I think that's a really a really good idea. And one of the advantages of the old PSA standards was, you know, you could say to your school board, listen, the pipes are leaking in the boys locker room. Here it is right here we have to do this, or we're going to be dinged by the state. That is one of the advantages of it and so I do think going at it through a regulatory rent lens may be better than going at it through a legislative lens, although if the legislature could offer some cover or support I think that would carry a lot of weight. Thanks. So, I am going to giving the time are going to go have Susie Glowski toe and then Jack Francis and then I'll open the questions. So we'll hear from both of them before questions. So, welcome Susie Glowski from the school board Association. I'm Susie Glowski, executive director of the Vermont School Board Association. I'd like to thank all of you for the opportunity to testify on s 13 relating to implementation of the people waiting factors report. And in its executive summary, the report stems from concerns about the extent to which the existing funding formula is effective in equalizing educational costs, and by extension opportunities to learn for students across the state. Today's resolution addressing equalization clearly states that it is the duty of the state of Vermont to ensure fiscal equity for all school districts to allow equal educational opportunities for all students. I would like to reemphasize two points that I provided in testimony to the House Education Committee in February. One is that the VSBA fully supports the findings as presented in the report. And the second is that the VSBA supports the establishment of a thoughtful and expeditious implementation plan in pursuit of equity of opportunities for all students, and one that is designed to build capacity within the systems to absorb the changes in due to changes in weights. s 13's formation of a task force on implementation of the people waiting factors report is a step in the right direction, as long as the task force stays focused on implementation. We do have concerns about assigning duties to the task force that go beyond developing a plan to implement the report. Broad topics such as consideration of funding formulas in other states and alternative models for school funding go beyond implementation of the report. It is questionable whether a task force that is constrained to meeting 12 times can do this these broad topics justice, in addition to all of the other duties listed in the bill. And it also leaves open the possibility that the task force will not develop a plan for implementation of the weights. Therefore, VSBA supports narrowing the scope of the duties of the task force so that it is clear that the task force is charged with creating a plan to implement the weights. Additionally s 13 currently requires the task force to hold one or more public meetings to share information and receive input from the public concerning its work. Because the implementation of the report is a very important statewide issue. It is unlikely that one meeting will be sufficient for public input. We encourage the committees to consider adding more opportunities for public input in geographically diverse areas of the state. The topic of the excess spending threshold the VSBA supports a suspension of the excess spending threshold to assist districts that need immediate relief while the task force creates a plan to implement the report. This, the excess spending threshold is not currently addressed in s 13. Finally, the pupil waiting simulator in the report needs to be updated with the most current data available and to reflect the act 46 mergers. In order to create a thoughtful implementation plan, the task force should have access to data, which reflects the changes districts are likely to experience when the pupil weights are updated. And s 13 should include a requirement to update the simulator so that the task force has the data it needs to create a thoughtful implementation plan. That concludes my testimony, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, and we'll go right to Jeff. Do you want you want to go to prep center answer I would never want to interfere with you so why don't you go ahead. Just a quick question. You mentioned the simulator and the report and I wonder if you can tell me whether the simulator takes into account s or funding. I don't believe that the current simulator takes that into account because it was created before the pandemic. We've had us or for a long time. So the, it's increased a whole lot recently but but it's been there for a long time so there's federal funding that focuses on poverty and my question is just because you mentioned the simulator and that we should use it and update it. I think that would be a good question for the simulator takes into account any of those federal funds directed to poverty. I think that would be a good question for Professor Colby, the author of the report. Yeah, I would direct that to her. I think that you know since, since the simulator was developed there certainly has been some time that has gone by so it definitely needs to be updated just to reflect more current information. So that's actually something that we might want to consider to make sure that is considered since we have these three years of funds drop it so fast, would you mind if we waited until we did until we heard from from this, the superintendent. I just want to say that I think Brad James has created a simulator. I think he presented it to us so that might be something to look at. And I think that question is perhaps to look at adding in the answer funding as well into the simulator. Jeff Francis from the from Superintendents Association. Good morning. Jeffrey Francis from our superintendent association how is my audio working this morning. It's so excellent. Okay, great. I hope it stays that way. It's pleasure to be with you all. Okay, Nichols and Susie Glowski and I often collaborate on testimony. We did not. In the case of S 13, but my comments are similar to there so I'll be brief. Equity may it's the underpinning of the education funding system in Vermont, and the determination was made that the weights needed to be changed. I think that the study was carefully vetted. In the case of Amy Colby and Secretary French. I thought gave some of the most informative testimony on the topic that I'd heard in conjunction with one another last week. And I think that it's well established that the weight should change in order to maintain equity in our funding system. I think the method by which that happens. That is what you're working on. And the question is, is changing the weights and eventuality or not. And S 13 sets up a process for consideration of an array of factors. And there's language within the bill that indicates that there'll be an implementation plan for the weights. And then the various aspects that the legislative study committee and I supported as a legislative study committee are asked to examine. Sort of broaden the focus and narrow the focus. And I understand that in the house you're trying to get that right. And I think that's what you ought to be doing so one job that VSA has is to sort of help superintendents who have a keen interest in equity and management understand what is coming. So because of the pandemic has been sort of a long lead into this process and we're eager to help you to the extent that you'd invite us to get sort of the scope of the study right. I thought that Jay Nichols points were good with regard to what the study should focus on. And I think that a fundamental question that you're going to ask is, is this a process that's going to lead to an adjustment of the weights. Or are we going to sort of broaden the area of study and focus into considerations that are reflected in certain elements of the of the charts to the task force. So I'm going to quickly run through those. And then I'll often I'll stop also and respond to questions. So, with regard to number one, which is a recommendation on which waiting factors to modify or create. In my opinion based on my review of the study that's work that was done in the study itself so I think that the charge number one is redundant with the study. So the question of categorical aid in the context of waiting factors that that's really thorny policy. And I believe that I agree with Jay Nichols that the that the presumption should be that the weights are going to change and then use that as the basis for considering what else could happen with categorical aid. And number three talks about how to ensure that school districts are using funding to meet education quality standards. I think that's perfectly appropriate for the task force to look at, but it's not something that's necessarily evaluated now. So number three, in my opinion raises the question of what we're going to modify the system. And now we're going to create sort of a review to make sure that money's being invested the way it should be invested. I wouldn't say that that's not useful or appropriate but that's not a feature of our system currently in the broadest terms and you've already talked about education quality standards per se. I think it's that isn't appropriate within the parameters of sort of appropriateness given the you wouldn't want to create a if any new standards along those lines are created they ought to be for everybody and not just the perceived beneficiaries of the of a change in policy. For which has to do with the want tax structure Commission report. I think is, it's an appropriate reference, but it's a huge body of work unto itself and in my entire career every year there's discussion of possible changes to the education funding system in total. I think that the consideration of the weights is, is that I think that the weights is a very specific piece of education policy that's intended to address perceived inequity or real inequities as they currently exist. So I think that the action on the weights should proceed the more comprehensive work. Five, extremely important. So, because of the pandemic. School districts are contending with whatever it is they're confronted on a daily basis. And I think that while there's a lot of theoretical discussion around the implications of changes to the waiting system. I don't believe that the practical realities have set in for school districts yet in either direction quite frankly. So one function that the legislative task force can perform is to make sure as it conducts its work that everybody knows what's coming because the last thing we would want to see is implementation of the weights and then people sort of awakened to the fact that they have dramatic implications with regard to their own budgetary processes that you don't want that consideration of school funding formulas in other states and alternative models for funding. I'm not certain that that's purposeful with respect to the focus of the work. So consider the relationship between recommended weights of categorical aid and changes the special education that the the interconnectivity between 173 and the weights is something that needs to be well understood and responded to. So yes. I think goes without saying because underlying law is the act 60 and act 46. I don't have a comment on the consultant, although it does seem to me that one is necessary. With regard to e collaboration will do what we can to support this process, both for the, our members, public education in general and the general assembly. Public meetings I think are pretty important both in terms of hearing from the public and also helping the public understand what we are looking at. With regard to the modeling, I thought representative answers question about sort of not just answer but the elements of the fun system in their entirety are very important. I believe that the last modeling was done by the joint fiscal office in February of 2020. That should be addressed ASAP because I think that the modeling is what everybody looks at, and it's inescapable that everybody's going to look at it, and it needs to conform what the general assembly does and how, how we respond as a public education community so in summary, I think s 13 sets up a good framework I do think that it needs to be modified and adjusted. I think the general assembly should, should come to grips with the question of whether the change of weight is the eventuality or whether there's going to be sort of a more comprehensive review, but I think that the momentum and the study and the work that has been done so far would argue that the change of weights should be an eventuality. Thank you. I think that we will be looking at sort of in two buckets the narrow questions and the broad questions and try to get those organized. Yes to just how they relate representative Austin and then representative Till. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Francis, superintendent Francis. Realistically, between now and full implementation. Let's say if we just, you know, implemented the weights. How long do you think that would be. It needs to be a slope. And I think that the, that that's it was recognized in age 54. I think that it's a thought process that ought to carry over. But I don't have a recommendation with what the timings should be. Would you have an estimate like a just a guest just so just to understand is are we looking at five years or three years just to have a sense of what it. Yeah, I mean, I, I appreciate the question, but my answer is the same. I'm not prepared to respond to that today. Okay, thank you. Representative Till. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm out of speaker. Sorry. It's just such a big group. It's such a big group. It looked like it was the home. Two things. One is poverty. We're putting so much weight on poverty. And I am concerned about how we're defining poverty. And it has been very, very difficult for me to track down how the poverty numbers for our school district have been arrived at. In fact, when I look at the numbers, it says two towns in our of our five towns have zero school age students in poverty, Richmond and Jericho have zero students. You know, when I drive around Jericho that doesn't make any sense to me. And when I try to track it down. It's really, really hard to figure out how they are determining poverty. And so the one one qualification I would have is, yes, I'm sure the poverty is very important. But I am not the least bit certain that how we are determining poverty right now is accurate. And that throws a large wrench into this. And so I really think that this task force needs to look at how we define poverty for these purposes of waiting the students. I think I might comment on that. I would argue representative till well I first of all I'd agree with you I think it's an even more pressing issue than this study. This process because now I'm sorry. Sue Siglowski and I have more engaged in a series of meetings throughout the late winter where we were trying to get a handle on that ourselves. And I would say, and I think this is a, I think this comment is appropriate. A lot of you know school districts have the same question about that so that issue of how that determination is made should be a fundamental part of the basis for this work. I would argue that superintendent boss adjournments I don't know if you heard the comments, but you used to be the assistant superintendent in Mount Mansfield. And what the poverty ratings currently say is we don't have a single student from Jericho or under Richmond who are poverty, who are in poverty. I would say I do not see that that makes any sense whatsoever. And it's so fundamental to this discussion of implementing the waiting. The second thing is actually even more troubling. And that's this. We got testimony from a national expert who said that the results of this study is as much confidence as he has in the people doing the study results of the study. Are an outlier in terms of how much waiting to give to poverty and ruralness and those sort of things. And he made a comment that you could predict the outcome by knowing who was doing the study who the national expert is on the study, which gave me great pause and I don't know how anybody else feels about that. I think the task force really needs to look at whether, in fact, these results and these weights are really a significant outlier from other studies that have been done across the country. I don't I don't know the answer to that but that gave me great pause also. I'm going to leave that probably as rhetorical at this point. So that we can move on I know we have guests in the room. But I think you've raised some I watched I followed some of the questions that you had representative tell and agree that it remains a question representative answer perhaps you could close this. I'm afraid I may sound rhetorical as well because it's sort of a follow up on what representative tell said the testimony that we got and I'm happy to hear comments from the witnesses that we've heard today if they have them. Particularly, Esther Nichols said we should accept the weights in the study without without questioning them. The testimony we got in our committee is is in fact that those recommended weights would be outliers and one of the question and they've been recommended in other states one of the questions I asked is whether any state had adopted them. And the answer was unequivocally no. So we would if if we adopt them from in whatever timeframe we're talking about. At least according to the expert that we heard from, we would then be an outlier and so I just, I think it's an important point and I would be very interested in comments from witnesses or witnesses on that question. If they care. Okay, comment on that represent what please do. That's a great question. So, when I saw the results of the study, not being an expert in in school finance although I do teach a school finance class. But that's about developing a budget is a lot different than what you're talking about. I don't know. I don't know with 100% validity myself. If those are the right scores. What I'm saying is that we hired a group that we thought, presumably, you know, we're going to come back with answers that seem to make sense. And implementing that, I think is is up to you as a as a legislature. What I don't want to see us do though, is to end up in a situation where where nothing happens over time. I'm much more inclined to, you know, sometimes it's really good to ready, aim, ready aim, ready aim, ready aim, but sometimes you need to fire. And so I would rather see something something implemented that helps these districts that have been in such need for such a long period of time, than nothing. And I'm reminded of Koso's work in the 70s, where you had East St. Louis with the ceiling tiles falling down, and West St. Louis where the kids were out, they had, everybody had new textbooks and all kinds of high quality stuff. And it was just across the river, because in one place Coca Cola plant clothes and the other did not. Now we're way above that because of Brigham. So we definitely have, you know, we have equity in terms of the amount of pain each taxpayer has to pay to fund our system. But we don't have equity on the opportunity and for students. And I think that needs to be addressed. And I'm not sure what the right weights are. I know that the effect size for social economic lower status is around 0.67. So that's roughly a year's worth of learning that a kid loses over three or four years, just based on poverty if there are no no other factors and of course there are also other factors. I just think it's something we definitely need to look at and address. Francis, did you want to respond. You know, I understand the point would we. I mentioned the testimony that we heard from Tammy Colby herself and Secretary French and you know, the accounts for the work that was done in the study very well and Secretary France not to put words in his mouth, but he was not questioning the validity of the study so I you know, if you were going to sort of cut to the chase you want to make sure that you got value in the investment that's been made in the study and I think it's within reason that the General Assembly would do that but but that's not. Fundamentally I think it's fiscal agents that's an obligation but you'd you want to answer that question and move on other because people are expecting action they're waiting for action and and I think that the system deserves it so but I do understand the importance of making sure that the information you're relying on has integrity I guess all of that goes without saying. I'm not questioning the study because it looks like a credible study to me I'm not an expert, and I haven't heard testimony from other experts. Okay, representative odi let's take the last one for this particular round, and then we will be hearing from when you ski school district. Madam chair, I was excited to hear that I would be hearing from the national expert whose name I'd heard for years. And then I was completely unimpressed by his testimony throughout, and was completely impressed by the testimony of Tammy Colby. So I, and the work that he got into that study. So yes, we should listen to what the comments of that national expert were, but I don't think that for me that was completely not determinative. Okay. You weren't looking for a response. Correct. At this point, representability that was just a statement. Okay. Thank you very much. Our principals and teachers and superintendents and school boards for continuing to help advise us in this question, we hear you. Well, I want to turn to some people who are actually in the field. And the first is Dr. Alex yen, who is a member of the Wanooski School District School Board. So, Dr. yen. Thank you for giving this opportunity to speak in front of the House Education Committee and honorable chair Ansel knowing that I'm also with the House Ways and Means Committee here and really I'm speaking on the opportunity on behalf of the Coalition of Vermont Student Equity, you know, a coalition that I really appreciate because it's a, it's a coalition that unites urban and rural areas all together because we have this passion to like make sure that we have a healthy and futures of Vermont. And I am speaking here just to give you a kind of an outline of the presentation I have here is really about implementing the recommendations of the people waiting for it but also to give you experiences that I have in Wanooski and submit our recommendations for S 13 and what I'm hoping to do here is really give you a sense of how to turn those recommendation reports of numbers into the on the ground kind of validity support because there are two types of validity here it's not just the numbers here and we always turn everything into a numbers game. We know that people are not defined by ones and zeros but their actual action items here and I hope I highlight that and link those numbers with these experiences. So that like, in many ways like I wanted to get this concept out here to is that educational equity is foundational to ensure that we have a democracy, because the democracy is all about having an educated populace. And so when we don't have educational equity. The democracy becomes kind of like weakened in a little bit and I want to make sure that you know that because we are Vermonters who have this passion for equity and democracy and it is totally linked together. And I think you all had a sense that this was kind of like tumbling because the legislator actually asked to do this research to see if there was record, you know, equitable funding and the distribution of funds when you ask Tammy Colby remember that was and she gave the research and to actually ask and say that she doesn't have the expertise is kind of mind boggling to me in one sense, because she did do the research and it isn't a little bit progressive and here's how I'm going to show you the impact of this. In our school district of Wanooski school district, we have about 800 students head eyes and ears, you know, like headcount with the current waiting formula. We have about 1000 students and that what that equates to is about $16,700 per equalized people. Just the numbers. But when you do the, um, when you do the new waiting formula that is suggested by Tammy Colby are equalized pupils up to 16,000 students, which basically means that we've been actually in the last 20 years been paying about $10,200 per equalized people. You can see how the system has actually made us like not be able to afford and when I joined the school board. I gotta admit, I did not I thought like, you know, I didn't realize I was actually going to make the I was going to be making decisions in our school budget on whether to give our students the basic necessities and basically choosing the basic necessities, like transportation, or school supplies, or trying to find ways to actually improve and build a better school building because we had a school building that was fit for 600 students but we actually have 800. So one of the kind of challenges and why we decided to choose the two, the building is because we had special educational educational teachers teaching out of repurposed closets and using single bathrooms as closet space. So we're going to be able to utilize basically getting our students who now have to truck in the snow six year olds that on on bad sidewalks to get to school. And that's what we were choosing. And this is what happens when you have an inequitable funding formula. Boy, did I wish that I really thought when I was joined the school board that I was actually going to be making decisions or rather to keep the art program versus like finding new ways to find new sporting equipment. And I'm going to just make sure you know that my doctorate in education. And one of the things that and what we study in education here is that we actually understand the last 30 years. There's a lot of things about education that's changed. It is not about a student going into a classroom and having a teacher lecture them and fill their heads with knowledge. We understand that context matters that life experiences matter that may impact learning. And that's the impact of generational poverty when you look at it. Generational poverty means that sometimes our parents can't take our students to the healthcare area so that they can see a doctor to be healthy to be learning in the classroom. So what the district decided to do, we decided to build the healthcare space in our school, so that the students can go there. Because what we know is a healthy learner is a better learner. And those are some of the other types of multi tier support support systems of support that we are implementing here because we understand that there are actions items that we need to take here to help students become better learners. That's a good thing. Right, because we do believe that all of our students. When we do this, they can be productive residents and citizens in our local and global world. And in when you see as you all know, we have a global community there. And that's really exciting there because it enriches our city and also enriches Vermont. So with that new global community that we have, we also actually have to provide extra resources to English as a second language learners. And those are well good investments to make for us, because as Pablo Boze out of University of Vermont has said is that like second generation new Americans or generation becomes a net benefit to the economy. To guarantee you we're too small when you give our 1.5 square miles that economic benefit is not only going to help when you ski, but it's also going to help all of Vermont. And I want to make sure you understand that when you have equity we actually help all of Vermont, and all that way. And I gotta admit, I've been very fortunate to meet to mentor a couple of new American students in our school district and one of the things that I really do see the benefit paying off. I did not speak a word of English in eighth grade and in the upcoming fall. He is going to go to a top 20 university in the United States on a full ride. And he actually have strong desires to come back to the state to become the future governor of Vermont and I believe that he will be. I have another student a first generation student who said that like that kind of extra support that I provided has now her going to another top top five liberal arts university in the United States. These investments that we make on our children pay off but here's where I struggle with this. I'm telling you our exceptions they're not the norm because of our equity formula, we are building depending on our community members to fill in the gaps. And that's what's the problem. And then just let me ask one more like other kind of investment that we do to help with that school serve in the communities is that our investments in our cultural lasons are so important to connect. With our children with the with their parents in the school, because here's the luxury that most of us have when we're not when we're not English a second language learners is that we can be involved with the schools. Right, but we have to pay this extra investment to help the layers also keep the parents informed, and it's powerful because it also develops trust with the government. And a lot of our new Americans come came to this country not not not really willingly they were, you know, forced out. And so they have this natural distrust of the government. And it's not to say this is not a commentary about our current government is just that they just distrust government because they were thrown out. And it illustrated even more to me when we had to saw he these students make this beautiful music video. And if you look at my testimony provided the link so that you can see the link in video. And it got news press and represented in Welch wanted to meet them and our cultural lasons had to spend two hours each saying like hey this is all right, because they knew that if they got a dental, because they were fearful that once the government knew them they would be in trouble and they might actually eventually caught being in trouble later on. We actually invited those two young men to come and perform in the state now so yes. It's beautiful right and I hope you get to watch that video but that's what we do in our town is that we hope. And I'm going to just, you know, kind of put it all in perspective and I'm wrapping up here is that all the when we spend the money that we needed to support our students the send the system would actually penalize us for excess spending threshold, because remember, they think we're spending 16,000 but we're really spending 10,000. So we can't even provide the money that we need to and then the other hard part is that then we're evaluated by standardized test scores. These inequitable systems have hurt us with the you know standardized test ones and these outcomes. Hurt us because our realtors then say that you shouldn't live in Winooski because we don't have a great school district. And there's a reason why 60% of our students qualify for rear dues lunch in our district. And here's the thing, it's because their families can't afford to live anywhere else. And I think that instead of shutting them when news he has embraced these challenges. And so I'm asking you please allow the districts that are willing to accept these challenges to be given a fair chance to educate their students. I hope and what I'm hoping here is that I'm giving you the real life impacts of the current waiting formula, and it's detrimental impact on our children our community. And this is why, when I'm asking you in terms of the recommendations is that we don't not, we don't need to study, we don't need another committee to study the weights themselves. But what we really need is a plan to implement these weights, because we need that support. And I'm going to end that and say that like you know one of the most enduring traits of being a vermonter is that we are, we do our best to be self sufficient with the hopes of never at needing to ask for help. And I know what I love about us is that when we do ask for help, there's always a vermonter with the willing and helping hand. And I got him in as a vermonter and as a school woman I've given my heart and soul in the last four and a half years to give every child in our district a great education. And I've come to realize that I cannot do this alone, especially when the system is stacked against our district. And I was grateful when the coalition for Vermont student equity was formed because I realized our district was not alone for fighting equity. And in a town where we are most likely to be polarized and united I find myself standing side by side with school members from the Northeast Kingdom, Bennington, Burlington, Rutland, Mount Pylir and the wind in the in Wyndham County. And I know that there are a lot of vermonters who are united by our passion for equity and democracy. And yet I realized that we cannot do this alone. I'm humbly asking you for your help. Our children need your help. And this legislation in terms of winners and losers but instead take pride that we will create something that will strengthen the character of our state by ensuring all of our children that they will have an equitable education. And with an educated populace, our democracy will be nourished and strengthened. And so I hope I the rest of my testimony that submitted has our recommendations where I'm really asking us to focus on the implementations of the weights. And not just another study because our district can't do it. We are down with more creativity than you can ever think of but we are now asking for your help. Categorical aid is another interesting that it's a distractor for us I don't need any more distractions need help. And I can also talk about categorical aid in the sense that like, you know, it's usually this, you know, from a year to year thing, we might not know that we get it or not and that's not, that's no way for a district to be proactive and cleaning. I'm sorry to interrupt but I'm keeping track of our clock and that there are other people I think that that we hear loud and clear that you want to make sure that we're implementing, we're working to implement this is that correct. There is additional testimony. I just want to make sure that our committee members have the opportunity to ask you questions because you're your first one coming in. District coming in. So, are there, and I apologize. No, no, and I apologize I have to leave. I do have a question. I'm looking at your title one allocations I'm looking at federal funds coming in. Do you know are you we are also hearing that the Vermont schools are sending federal title one money back to the feds. So if you're sending any money back at this point which remains a real concern that we're not using the funds that we have. I would probably defer to my superintendent on that question but I have a feeling that we're probably not because we use every penny that we can. I think another question of interest to all of us is, you have a significant amount of money coming in from Esther, and I'm hoping that that will will help I see you've got about you've got almost 12 million coming in over three years and wondering if you have ideas and how you might be spending that and I probably asking to brought a question for the time. What's going to defer to the superintendent in on our that but I do know that we are planning and thinking strategically that's the beauty of our school district is that we always plan and think strategically. But I also want to add that you know these funds are usually one time in three years and they do run out but when, and I want to use this analogy with technology we always know that technology changes on a yearly basis and you need a steady stream and a dependable source of when technology is coming. That is the same thing when you do with equity. You don't solve equity and generational poverty with one time funds. Right. And that's the analogy that I wanted to make sure that is clear to folks. I'm also concerned that I see on my paper that what when you see is only you only are counting 28.24% of poverty ratio which sounds low to me doesn't sound accurate. It isn't even working with you know understanding the counts and stuff and that has been one of the works that we have to do because we also know once again, I mentioned the distrust of government, it means that there's a lot of paperwork that needs to be filled from sometimes from families. Yeah, I think that's a question that other members of our two committees have as well. Is there anybody else that had a question. I will tell you that I did teach in Windows get one point. Thank you. Representative cornheiser and then Austin. Thank you I really enjoyed your testimony and the love that you have for your community and good work that you've been doing there. I'm. I guess confused as the best way to explain it about why you see the categorical categorical grants as a distraction I think when you first started your testimony you were talking about really substantial spending and efforts around transportation as an example. From my perspective that's a really clear location or categorical aid is a really tidy solution that can then open up more of your spending capacity for other things that are more district specific. One of the issues I have a categorical aid and this is related to my regular work at the university is in with trial programs that I've worked at. So I worked at university Vermont but I previously worked at Penn State and the example that I give is is that programs from federal governments are great but they're usually up as a startup funds and then they can be pulled away when we don't get the grant. And when you don't get pulled away the grant thing you're stuck with the situation that you're trying to plan most wise. Whereas if you know that there's a steady stream of money that comes in you can plan accordingly. So category eight is me is thinking that it's a reactive as a proactive. I appreciate that. And I'm pleased to know that thank you I appreciate the recognition of the passion for Manuski but please note that it's also a passion for being a Vermont. Representative tell. Yes, thank you for your testimony as a former longtime school board member. Just changing the weights does not bring when you ski more money. It purely lowers their tax rate. My question to you is how confident are you as a school board member that you're going to be able to sell to the citizens of when you ski increasing their tax rates to you're not reducing their tax rates as a result of this but instead keeping their tax rates where they are now to actually get the money that you know the extra weights kind of imply you need. And I think there's a point of clarification and I'll let others to either correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's actually increasing our taxing capacity, so that I know that our current tax rates we would actually get more money for what we are getting taxed at our current rates. And so that like you actually have to set your tax rates every year. Right, but in theory that the taxing capacity allows us more funds to actually pay for what and if we're passing certain budgets already with the at the certain tax rate, then I know that that is at least the minimum that we're willing to accept, and that the taxing capacity would hopefully give us more funds at that point. We say only if you can convince your taxpayers to vote for it. And I think that we've already convinced them that we at the certain certain rates that that we have. I mean you know one of the hardest part as a school board member is to explain to them that our budget is not always correlated with our tax rates. You know, and as a statistician I'm like I've had to do that stand out and I'm the one that does sit up in front of our community and talk about the need. And we do those efforts and I have great confidence that we will be able to do continue our conversations on that level. And you are in the year well below the excess spending threshold, as I'm looking. Yeah, yes. Yeah, so I'm representative Maslin and then I want to invite in our next guest, because we have some others in the taskmaster today. Thank you. Mr. Yan, I find that I'm in agreement with representative corn hyzer in that categorical aids for in certain certain areas would be actually very straightforward and very helpful. You did say what happens if we don't get the grant a certain year but I think if the if the great if the category late is structured so you don't have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops and can be denied for something that you clearly need. Then categorical aid, for instance, for for ESL students or or poverty students or some such a thing like that could be very straightforward and helpful. So, exactly a question but it's a comment but I'm right. I'm responding to your to your comment. And I got met as a school board member I don't have that control. I'm still dependent on something else. But I do know that if we change the waiting formulas and really focus on what this, the recommendations are on the waiting formulas, at least I know that that's dependable on a yearly basis to a certain degree. Okay, I'm going to move on to our next witness. Mr cold, and I'm hoping that we can keep this within about 10 to 15 minutes. Thank you. Just a small correction chair web it's core K or B for the record. And apologies but you know I consider it a metaphor but there's a giant thunderstorm. Thank goodness for for clearing the drought that's rolling through Marlboro as we speak. You know just as introduction. My name is Douglas core chair of the Marlboro school board we are rural small school district in southern Vermont. We are part of the coalition for Vermont student equity, which Alex is a member as well, and when new ski. I'd like to start simply by acknowledging that I'm sorry this committee has the task of rectifying this inequity issue. It's been 20 years since the passage of act 60. And by my understanding the waiting of people should have been a focus immediately after its passage. But nonetheless, Marlboro school board, other small rural impoverished and high English language learning districts are here as allies. We hope to provide information and we also hope to be part of the task force and in an advisory capacity if necessary. We hope to provide information, support and examples for how the original improper waiting is negatively impacted our schools and communities these last 20 years. The coalition for Vermont student equity is here to aid you in your work, we only ask him return that you give back an equitable distribution of tax burden for all taxpayers in Vermont. We feel the best most expedient way to do that is by implementing the weights and accordance with the people waiting factors report, which was led by Dr Colby, who was here last Thursday. I'm speaking to you. As you heard from Dr Colby's testimony, solving the equity issue starts by adjusting the weights in the formula and I can't. She said many times full stop you know we know there's the issue. It's just implementation that is what we should be discussing. While there are many implementation factors to consider, as outlined by Dr Colby, the focus and goal of the task force should be on coming back and implementing the weights. It's not enough to focus on in that study. Still, the nationally publicized study gives you the roadmap to do so. As Dr Colby said, you have excellent thought partners in this process, a Marlboro and others from our coalition insist you utilize them and most importantly listen to their guidance. We also ask that the coalition for Vermont student equity be added to the group of stakeholders as I mentioned before. It would be difficult for the task force to operate in a vacuum without hard examples when discussing implementation. But with your indulgence I'd like to walk you through the impacts the improper waiting is had and will have if delay occurs. For those of you unfamiliar with Marlboro it's a town located in southern Vermont on the side of Hogback Mountain. It's an elevation of 700 and it covers 36 square miles, the majority of which are class three dirt roads. So we have two paved roads I think essentially running through Marlboro are near a school building neighbor. They're located down the curved and dangerous route nine in Brattleboro, where there's a difference of 1000 feet of elevation. So Marlboro is the shining example in the people waiting factors report for for where it's stated as less than 36 persons per square mile. So it's a weight outlined in the study. When the people waiting factors report was released in 2019. It finally answered a question that we've been asking ourselves for quite some times, why can we not adequately fund our school. The Marlboro school has been forced to kick the can further down the road on various capital improvements, or bid farewell the student program resources. We've wished to not overburden the taxpayers who've generously supported increases to their tax rate at select times. But last year, after being faced with a 30 cent tax increase, as well as a leaking roof in the fifth and sixth grade the dam literally broken almost like the rain that's coming down right now. We can no longer maintain a school that has adequate school facilities and learning environments. Our town firmly understands the term tax capacity. The average income in Marlboro is $50,000 for a family of four per the last census, and we have about 500 families from which to raise an average per pupil cost of $20,000. Additionally, while other towns appear to be losing students, we appear to be growing based on career projections Marlboro's enrollment could go from 80 ADM average daily membership for those that hate acronyms like me, 80 ADM two years ago to 120 by 2022. Our schools bursting at the seams, we need facility improvements. But this this growth excites us. It excites us for schools community is future. The education funding formula needs to start working with us though, instead of against us. And for this reason, we disagree with the use of categorical aid to fix the issue. I think Secretary French put it best last Thursday, when he said quote categorical aid would be raised from tax rates, and if the rates are unequal, how would that further the goals of Act 60. So the state of Vermont does not have a fundraising issue that has an inequitable tax rate issue. And I'm hoping that when your work is done with S 13 and the makeup admission of the task force it proposes that you'll aim to have that task force focus solely on how to implement the weights. So, with regard to excess spending for many years Marlboro was able to stay below the excess spending threshold. However, over the last few years, especially with growing ADM numbers. And as we find in the funding capability, our excess spending threshold is simply anticipated to be in the budget before the board even starts discussions on programming needs. So this penalty on top of an already inequitable education tax rate is unjust. We would, we would ask that you suspend the excess spending threshold, while the task force undertakes its work. I'm sorry, I'm not. I'm not going to say this of a water. I understand you would like me to speed it up but there's a lot to kind of go through. And accompanying this testimony I've sent a four minute video to you. It's in your inboxes and I encourage you all to watch it. There's two students and a teacher put it together. The first striking element is not what they're showing you it's, it's the pure and simple fact that these two articulate eighth grade students are fully aware of the disparity that exists across the districts and it's not just adults that are in this conversation. And I beg you not to forget that fact. Educational educational resources like full time reading and math, professional development for teachers special programs for students counselors and nurses to meet health education needs. Those are the most valued aspects of our school, but I, but I beseech you that, you know, they're abstract. There's no better concrete example to prove the disparity that exists. Then when you see an old unsafe play structure removed, and nothing new is erected in its place due to lack of funding. It's difficult to explain to a seven year old that they don't have a play structure because there's a new state mandate that needs to be met and health insurance or elsewhere. That was mentioned before and act 173 with the block grant coming. We could build that play structure, but with a penalty would cost us twice as much and put us in further danger of not passing our budgets which has been mentioned in other committees, especially in the Senate. I'm extremely proud to be the chair of Marlboro school, because we have a supportive community. However, I cringe when I hear conversations in this committee and others about trusting districts to use their educational funds and not simply take quote a tax break. I think that on this committee or others I invite you to intend or watch one of our school board meetings. Instead of a tax break request from the community. I would expect a line of Marlboro community members lobbying the school board to bring back so much programming that we've lost, or add literacy supports. And I definitely expect a community member to say please move the art room out of the storage facility closet. And while you're at it bring back the FTE is that you cut an hour on top of that. This testimony Marlboro is far from the only school that struggles to raise funds the way other schools do. And the majority of Wyndham County districts have been underweighted for the last 20 plus years. And many districts that are overweight in our supervisory union support implementation of the weights. And the reason is that these students are all of our students. And this is an underweighted district will see students eventually travel to Brattleboro and beyond for high school and Dover, which is an overweighted district will see students travel to Leland Gray. However, we both support this implementation, regardless because we both know that's going to impact the students success in secondary schooling, we're both K to eight schools. And while I'm happy to be here today with my colleague in the coalition. I just wish there was no need for coalition, you know, it took us a year to organize and our memberships growing each month because people are realizing what this issue is. And they also understand that it's affecting a majority of districts. But, you know, finally just two more comments based on what was said earlier in this test and the in the session regarding categorical aid. The third medical research described as something that you know trickles out into the medical community to primary care providers and other practitioners. And, you know, maybe a doctor will get a conference or go to a conference or read something in a journal or on a webinar but you know I think of this example and I think of categorical aid because Vermont has a serious equity issue it's almost like a health problem. The testimony of Dr Colby, Secretary French, and districts like ours is basically equivalent of having the CDC University researchers patients telling you what will work, and to not act on that information and not to listen to them it is negligent be able to continue to give a patient morphine and you could literally cure them ensuring implementation of the weights instead of the categorical aid will help cure the problem and not cover it up. And then lastly, regarding the changing of the Ed fund model from, I guess tying it to property taxes to the income tax I feel like that's a valiant, a valiant effort, but you know, I've heard arguments in favor of it. The pursuit is essentially that it shouldn't be part of s 13 and immediate relief is needed. It's, it's not about how it's about how you get the money not how it's distributed. So, just like anything else you'll be inviting another study of various models in different states. There's going to be lobbyists on both sides of the aisle, and there'll be drafted to draft of legislation as representatives roll off and on committees. You know how democracy works and while that's all happening. In my eyes, you know the equivalent of two to three middle schools will have gone through sixth to eighth grade and graduated. It's disturbing when you think about it from the viewpoint of a child, you know they're not going to get that time back. So, without a yield questions. Thank you represent of Maslin is that what we call an old hand or a new hand. It's old. I'm sorry. In another committee I know if they come down as soon as I shut my mouth. Thank you. In this, this year on your own you have to do it yourself. Okay. We're self sufficient hearing that. I'll do my best. Representative Harrison. What my question is, I'm assuming that Marlboro is ascending town for the high school students. And I also read that your student population is rising. And I'm just curious the effect that tuition that you really don't have any control over when you send your high school students is having on your ability to fund your elementary school and incidentally I watched the video and it's a great sales for Bill H 426. Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, I feel like there are a lot of things tying together, you know schools are communities and communities have, you know reasons there's reasons why are we have dirt roads that are class three. You can see where we're putting our money it's to our school we value our school immensely in this town. And so when I hear people talk about the tax break issue, it sort of gets me a little upset. So we start to high school. A lot of I said the majority of our children do tuition into Brattleboro, which we pay the state rate, and then other schools, you know we have great schools that work with us to I can't really, I don't want to say I need to promote them but you know they either go level or less with the state funding model so I just like to say that, you know, we do, we do tuition out. I can get you harder numbers. If you want to email me, I'm happy to respond with my superintendent's help and principal to represent Boston. Thank you. I just want to clarify, do you is your ADM 120 now K8. No ADM has fluctuated. I started on the board in 2015. At that time we had about 8080 to 85 every year it's gone up. We anticipate currently right now with the pandemic. We would have been seeing maybe 110 113. But next year, as you know there was a big transition of the Marlboro College, we have a new people there and there's a whole new host of folks that work there that have children, we anticipate them sending students to 120. Over the last couple of years we've been turning people away for early education preschool, because we just don't have the space we don't have the capacity to grow and, and as you know, as again this is all tied in right there's there's other bills related to pre K and early education, and I feel like there's a real disconnect between, you know, the facilities that are in Vermont, the infrastructure of the building. You know what things have been gone away because we just had to get rid of them for safety reasons, versus what we need to, we need to build up, you know, the governor himself is inviting people to move and work remotely and bring families, but if we don't have the space where I'm just so would it be safe to say your student teacher rating ratio is about one to 15. I can't get you that hard number off top my head. That's not my skill set, but I will get to get it to you from my principal immediately following this. Great, thank you. So we essentially are a makeup of joint classrooms so we have a K, a preschool. Okay, we have a 123456 and then we're considering next year, going with the 678. We traditionally had two teachers in the seventh and eighth but we're going with just two teachers for 678 fully. So, and also our principal has cut down his hours and he has a great we're lucky to have a principal with a science background, so we're going to start leaning in a teaching science so that we can make these, you know, so we can, you know, put money toward a mass specialist which is what we're looking for next year. So, next question. Thank you representative cornheiser. Thank you so much for being here it's good to see you. I absolutely know that you your district is incredibly supportive of whatever budget, your board presents and is looking for resources for your students all the time. I just want to sort of clarify that when I talk about categorical grants I'm not talking about them as a replacement for the weights I'm talking about them as part of the greater whole so you know I know that you have a lot of instruction and facility challenges, and maybe there's another option for making sure that we're covering that on a statewide level, or when we think, you know when you talk when we talk about special ed, or sending schools, I just, you know you've brought up so many issues that intersect with each other in this big hole and while I see that the coalition has a lot of fear that if we widen this task force, we're not going to get it done. I think it's just so hard to talk so difficult to talk about any of these issues as separate from each other, because tax capacity and spending and the things that spending is needed for are really just all mixed up if we can separate them when we're examining the issue and so I really have a lot of trust in your district that you want what's best for kids and best for their community and that you're willing to spend on that. And I want to make sure that as we explore that issue as a, as a body in the legislature that we're doing it in a way that's taking all the different factors into account so we can meet the needs of kids throughout this school. I completely respect that approach, only to a point because I feel like you can't tackle the whole thing at one time. Right, you know I think Dr Colby said it, you know, best when she was essentially stating that, you know, the study that was requested focused on the weight and how to implement them. You know if you want to look at funding things from the income tax perspective, totally great value and pursuit do it, but don't make us wait five years for that to happen. Additionally with categorical aid, we are recipients of the small schools grant. Those definitions shaved and changed over time it just when it sort of became from 100 schools down to 35 when I 46 happens. So, I have to say, you know as committees change, you know you change the formula, and you're, you're basically that's that's not going to change we can rely on that we can trust on that. You know I just feel like this task force should focus on the weights and how to implement them solely because if you go too wide, as Dr Colby said you're going to go an inch deep, you don't want to do that. Thank you. Last question from representative Odie. Yeah, thank you. I guess I would have to just ask, why now. Why ask all the questions about all the other categorical grants and all the other things title one answer. Why ask these things now. Because of the weight because of the weighting study. Those are things that you would ask basically about an entire funding formula. Representative Odie who's your question to. I'm just, I don't know. All right, I'll ask a Mr Corb. What would you say, why, why do you think these questions are being asked now about all these other things that are that are beyond the weights. I will, I have an answer. I will definitely email you why I feel that way but in general. I feel like, you know, even last Thursday there are questions that are asked that obfuscate from relief, and I really want that to be clear and resonate and I really appreciate that both committees are here the ways and means and the house said, because when statements are made to talk, you know, their distractions that when when it's talked about well how are they going to spend the money, you know, or how are we going to raise funds. That's not really the question the question is, we have a distribution problem, and it's it's a poison in the ed funding model. And if we fix that and I think was it Mr Nichols before who said, if we fix that, you guys can set up in the task force even somebody to monitor it, if we change the weights, while you're working on something else but there needs to be relief, I mean we can't go another five years, because I mean honestly, some representatives won't be here next session some representatives will, and you know this bill that started out as 13. That was originally Phil Bruce bill, and it has changed and now it's completely different bill than what it was and I know bills change, but I'm just giving you an example of where you can go and, and I feel like at the end of this year there needs to be action and that would be a real neglect and we'd be knowingly keeping people in poverty and children down. I think that that's just wrong. I am going to need to leave I have another meeting I'm turning the chair over to Representative Coopley. I just want to check back. I think I just want to make sure when we get to Megan Roy, that we make sure that we speak with her about the potential impact of the waiting factors maintenance of effort in the census based funding model, as we go forward so someone can remember to address that I'd appreciate it. So, luckily you're in charge. Yeah representative back I believe you have a question. I just want to comment to the previous question. The reason why looking at all of this, all of this is there are multiple inequities in the education funding system that impact the education kids receive and the tax rates that taxpayers receive and people waiting is just one of them. And so if you address one of them and ignore the other inequities in this system and you end up with an inequitable system still. Representative back. We're running about a half an hour behind here and we certainly have to very important testimonies coming up. And I would like to introduce Megan Roy, who is the director of student support services. They're not comfortable special education. And Megan, you have the floor. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Coupoli. I will, I'll try to be brief and focused. So my name is Megan Roy, I am the chair of the legislative committee for BCSEA and also a director in Chittenden County. My goal today is just to reiterate and make sure the committee as they continue this conversation. Make sure that they're keenly aware of a few different policy constructs that are about to intersect as we talked about people waiting and some other recent changes to funding specifically in special education. The BCSEA acknowledges and supports the move toward equity that is coming the conversations that are coming out of the waiting study acknowledges that our current weight. We're not developed by any formal research base and don't match what we know it costs to educate students. We're in support of the work to move towards implementation. Our goal is to make sure that when we do that we do it in a way that understands all of the various issues. So I'm going to talk about three things. And then I have a relatively specific piece that I would add to S13 to make sure those three things are addressed and then I'm happy to answer questions. So the three policy constructs are the waiting study, the shift to a census based funding model for special education, that's Act 173, and then as part of Act 173, the construct of maintenance of effort and the impact that that will have on districts. And I agree with a few of the previous folks testifying about the intersection of all these things. That's really what I'm here to talk about is to make sure that that intersection is considered moving forward. And in terms of the waiting study, I don't have a lot to add to the testimony that you've already heard the PSDA supports and understands the need to review the process of waiting and addressing the inequities in the current system is in line with our own push toward equity. So as it pertains to a shift to a census based funding model as this committee is well aware, we're entering a change in how we fund special education so districts will no longer receive special ed, state special ed funding through reimbursement for services will receive a census grant. And while it's true that the premise for reducing or for shifting to a census grant was done to increase the flexibility that districts have to be able to spend their special ed dollars. And it's also true that the issue of cost containment was part of the conversation, leading up to passing of Act 173 so there, there is an intent through program change, which we support, but there is an intent to decrease special education spending. So as the state moves into implementation of a census grant. Many districts about half in Vermont will see a decrease in state special education support, but their need to provide those entitlement services does not go away with a decrease of support. So, one of two things will happen when a district receives fewer state dollars, they will either need to increase spending on the general ed side of the budget, or they'll need to reduce costs, both of those things impact something I'll talk about in a minute which will be a decrease of effort. But simply put, it's important that the task force referenced in F 13 and the General Assembly as a whole understands as weight shift and schools receive their overall ed funding differently they're also going to see a difference in their state special education funding and we need to make sure that those things are understood. It's important as part of the rulemaking process that was undertaken when Act 173 was passed. There are pretty significant changes to the state definition of special education moving us into alignment with federal definitions, all positive changes. But it is there is a very real possibility that some districts percentage of students eligible for special education may increase. Today, we won't know until this is implemented but my in my professional opinion, I think we may see increases. We will see increases in students eligible for special education but because we will no longer be in a reimbursement model there won't be a commensurate increase in special ed funding. So, again, this is just context that's important to be aware of, as we talked about the weighting study. And really important piece in this committee has heard VCSE I talked about this. For many years including in the lead up to passing of Act 173 maintenance of effort is a federal requirement that ensures that districts continue to fund special education and it's defined as spending at least as much in terms of special education services, as you have the previous year there's a state requirement for maintenance of effort and there's a local requirement. Both are true and I'm really speaking to the local requirement so leas need to spend at least as much as they have the previous year. There are some exemptions in the federal law that have to do with, you know, students exiting the system, you know, retirements that are replaced by lower cost so there's some specific exemptions. But just being more efficient in how you spend special education dollars is not an exception, which means if we lower our cost because we have changed our programming, which is the intensive act 173. That's not an allowable exemption for maintenance of effort. And that we're going to start to understand what that looks like as we're as we're implemented in some districts who stand to receive more state special education funding may not even face this issue, but districts that are going to receive special ed funding are either going to spend less on special education, causing them to fail their maintenance of effort test. Or they're going to shift the cost of special education funding on to the, you know, general led budget. If a district does not maintain effort fails their maintenance of effort test they risk losing federal funding. They're usually part of their idea be grant. And I, you know, I have heard in conversations, people talk about how well, you know, that's okay we'll be more efficient overall. So if we lose a little federal funding that that's okay but that's, that's not, that's not really the case districts use their idea be funding to fund essential special ed services so if we get a reduction in that federal funding. We will still have to again provide those services. So, my, my goal is not to, it is simply to make sure that as we pass legislation to enact a task force that that task force very explicitly studies those three issues together. There's a language in s 13 that asks the task force or puts as a primary responsibility of the task force to study these three issues. We would recommend specifically adding to that section that there be modeling of these issues together for lea is to make sure that those three issues as part of this study so a district should be able to see. Here's what this will look like when we change the people wait. Here's what it will look like when we shift to a census grant. And here's what those two things together will do for our maintenance of effort. It's important that that gets put in front of districts and in front of policymakers so BC FBA is recommendation is simply to make sure that we continue talking about those three issues specifically charge the task force with looking at them. Happy to answer questions. Representative common. Thank you and good morning. The issue of maintenance of effort has to do specifically with special ed funding and special ed spending. And I think one of the challenges with waiting, you know, tying waiting to maintenance of effort is that there's no guarantee that that waiting. The increase taxing capacity will be used to I guess make up for a potential loss in special ed funding if you're on sort of the other side of the census based funding formula. I think I've lost my thread for a question but I guess if you wouldn't mind commenting on, you know, the two are not intrinsically tied together. They're just sort of complimentary potentially. Absolutely that's exactly right and that's, and that's really our goal is is to make sure that policymakers and districts understand that they impact each other there. The need, you know, they're, there's not a lockstep connection between changing a pupil weight, or, or changing to a census grants and maintenance of effort. So long as you continue to maintain your effort for special education and each district is going to have a different reality when it comes to how those intersect. Some are not going to see a decrease in special ed funding therefore there's probably not a lot of impact on maintenance of effort. So, again, the goal is just to make sure that folks understand the connection or understand the need to look at the connection representative Boston. Yes. Thank you, Megan good to see you again. I'm just wondering I also know that we in the Ed committee and in other committees are putting a lot of money into prevention in early childhood. And we just passed a literacy bill to address literacy. Do you, are there any other recommendations or any other that you can see so we could possibly, you know, lower the need for students to get individualized education. If we're missing anything. No, absolutely I, you know, one of the things that is, you know, really has to do with how the agents, you know, part of what the agency will be doing as they also shift to a census grant is they will be rewriting guidance on how they calculate special education spending because we still have to calculate special ed spending and document maintenance of effort. And we've advocated as has the census based funding advisory group that the state maintain a flexible definition because fun so so we'll use a literacy grant as an example. If the literacy grant is used to purchase literacy interventionist professional to our teaching and students on IEP receive support from those literacy specialist. We should be able to count some of those costs towards documentation of maintenance of effort. And in Vermont previously, or actually currently, but in Vermont current model we can't count those costs. And that is actually a connection between those prevention activities, and our ability to document maintenance of effort. And I'm hoping I'm not going too far in the weeds but it's you've raised a really important question when it comes to developing guidance because it's a district can satisfy the requirements of effort requirements. If they're allowed to acknowledge that some of these prevention dollars buying interventionist or our coaches or you know literacy program that is in support of special education. So, again, if we if the task force can can really look at those things together and help districts understand that those prevention activities do support special education. That's part of how we will get around this maintenance of effort piece. I hope that's clear because I realize that's a really kind of fine point on the finance part but it's a really good question. I think the question I was asking is, can you see any other initiatives that would prevent students from be, you know, needing specialized education so not once they're on an IP, they can look at funding but in general can you see any other initiatives that we can address, you know, learning early on, you know so they don't know. I mean, there will always be students that will need specialized instruction but I wonder if there's anything we can be doing in terms of prevention, more for prevention. Before I'm not at what I would say is the shift to a focus on a multi feared system of supports, which is the programmatic side of Act 173 is the biggest thing that we can continue to support so that's already in place. But what we need to do is focus on the professional development so that districts can actually make those changes because that is the definition of prevention is to identify and intervene early. And this is already happening and it's sort of implied as part of 173 but a good multi tiered system of support includes pre K. So, you know the say it looks a little different when you're implementing them across our pre K model in Vermont. But it's the same idea of do we have information about kids in a way that allows us to flag the kids that need something and do we have a structure to provide that something and then measure it so in some ways the legislation is already there but it is continuing to support. Thank you representative Coronizer. Thanks and I'm sorry if everyone else in the committee knows the answer to this question but is the Act 173 funding already modeled somewhere and I just haven't seen that spreadsheet yet. So, that's a good question. The shift to a census grant I believe the last time this was issued within 2018 I may be wrong on that but shortly after Act 173 was passed the state did do modeling for districts to know just what the shift to the census grant would mean for them so yes, that exists back then I don't think it's been, you know, recalculated but there is, there is a spreadsheet that exists and so really what we're asking is that this task force, create a mechanism to look at that plus all of these other impacts. Thank you. Well thank you Megan. I'm going to have you back. And we're going to turn over to superintendent goes out during to continue the conversation. Thank you representative Coopley vice chair and it's it's nice to see representative till an old companion and also representative back, who's local and representative Williams thank you for being here. Good morning, I serve as a superintendent of a rural remote Kingdom East School District in the Northeast Kingdom. My prior work was at Mount Mansfield School District in Jericho and then Montpelier School District and then I served at I served in two independent schools. So I want to begin by saying the waiting study has been completed. It's clear. I want to review the appendices and the related algorithms formulas are from a multitude of states they use category gate they they looked at all of this, and it's already been analyzed, and it's done. What's needed is not more analysis of the same information, but how to create a funding system in Vermont that's equitable for all children. My reading of S 13 is that it wants to determine how various scenarios will specifically impact each region. Categorical a local tax rates weights. My hope is that the same waiting study research is not create recreated the risk with this work of prolonging the decisions via a task force and subsequent public meetings and become a land grab based on each person's best interest and their resources to lobby our current system shows how that ends. So here's my given S 13. Here's my recommendation. One, the first step of the task force must be clearly stating the objectives of equity. What does this mean. Do we want children in Concord and Sutton to have the same doors open and opportunities for their future as the children in Norwich and Shelburne. Answer the question for specifically first. Secondly, there needs to be a specific connection and segue between student outcomes and fiscal investments, specifically how the two overlap. The wording now says recommend meeting the EQS education quality standards. Third, when reviewing property taxes, other regional influences need to be considered. For example, there is a statewide health care bargaining decision. It's the same for people in South Burlington and Linden 20% of a copay in South Burlington and Linden impacts the salary that teachers are taking home very differently one one has $10,000 more in their salary. So just by doing something statewide and not looking at those implications, you're not going to continue to get what you want, which is equity. For the transition to the new eighths or categorical aid outline a specific timeline and be real specific about it. So there's a portion about recommending how tuition rates for non operating school districts and career centers should be adjusted to account for the cost of education students. The region I am in we have no operating high school all of our children have high school choice. I don't think you can adjust tuition rates of independent schools. It's a compensation for districts that have no choice but to tuition and have no control over tuition rates one of our independent schools this year had a 5% increase in their tuition, and that had a significant impact on our budget. Number six, consider school funding formulas and other states and alternative model models for school funding. This was done in the waiting study. I do not recommend redoing this waiting study work of the other formulas that have been done. Take the next step. When considering the impact of recommended weights or categorical aid ongoing capital expense and physical infrastructure need to be included. There's a big discrepancy between a facility that has a gym that is not structurally sound and could collapse if snow were on it, and a gym that can hold a bunch of amazing kids at a game. That's just skims the surface. The facilities needs are really discrepant across the state. So in general, these eight recommendations are based on ensuring equity in the process. Oh, there's one more my last one number eight. I'll give you these numbers so you can, you can make sure they're in order. So the public meetings, when you get public input it needs to be in different regions and contextualize with the ability and capacity for certain regions to attend the public meetings, lobby and promote their own interests. As I said earlier, what we see right now is that's that's what happens is certain groups and the louder voice tends to win sometimes. So in general the eight recommendations are based on ensuring equity in the process, and that the outcome, and the drilling into specific information is essential to make wise funding formula proposals. I want to comment on a few items that you asked several folks that I would be able to answer categorical a transportation a transportation aid is based on your previous years spending. So I would like all of my children to be able to do soccer and cross country after school and get a late bus home in my previous district that's what happened. The funding for that district was already baked in, and they get their funding for transportation aid based on that we don't have that. What we have to do is add it so there's an added cost and it's a slow ball in terms of how you get your funding and many of these categorical categorical aid formulas have these little loopholes where it is really more challenging for the high poverty areas. And I think Representative Webb asked this was about sending money back to the federal government. Let me tell you how title one funds work. You have to look at all of your data, you know how you're doing in math and science, and then you write what's called an investment, and you send it off and then it has to be vetted by the AOE. They're grant working team and sometimes we do do not get our investments back until November December. So then okay we want to hire a literacy specialist. So, in January we're trying to hire a literacy specialist. Now in our region, where we have 20% attrition rate each year of our teachers, that means teachers come and 20% of them leave each year and it's not the same 20. It's hard to hire a literacy coach in January for the balance of the year. So then we try and we work and we try to find someone and we don't get somebody until March, and then we're only paying that portion of the salary, when in the grant, we had a whole month worth of the salary. So then suddenly the the grant folk are saying, holy cow you didn't spend the money we wanted to give you. And then, you know you want to carry it over but their deadlines and the short long in the short of money that's going back to the federal government it has to do with the timing and the sequence of how funds are allocated and I know this happens across the state. Those are my general comments. Representative Web asked me to talk about how we're spending our ESSER funds. So we have currently our ESSER funds are planned for a robust summer program with outdoor academic recreation and arts activities and we've hired somebody to run this program who's going to work with all of our schools and our after school program. Number two, we have a team that's looking at it and we're going to spend money in general in the following areas social emotional needs we have places that don't have guidance counselors, or librarians. Enrichment needs, arts, music, the number of full time equivalent for music teachers is far inferior like I would love if all of our children were able to play a musical instrument in the middle school. That doesn't happen right now. Academic needs tutoring and interventions facilities needs. Many of you have heard me testify about our deteriorating facilities, and then also transportation so students can participate in after school programming and I was I was thinking about when I worked in the middle school and I was thinking about, I would go to a cross country race at Browns River Middle School, and there would be probably 100 kids, if not more, and that you know some of them are just going really slowly and some are running really well and I want the children in our region to be able to have the opportunity to run and get a bus ride home, so they can participate, and maybe, you know be an Aaron Sullivan and win a national championship and go to Stanford. Throughout our state who have these abilities and what's happening right now is in some regions, they're not able to open doors doors are shut by virtue of funding and our schools. So those are my answer funds. Now one piece I want to talk about the answer funds is our work here deciding how to use that money is is hard because it feels like a land grab and people are a bit frothy at the mouth. Because when you're so under resourced for so long. It's like, oh my gosh, we need a guidance counselor let's use that for guidance. Oh my gosh, we need a library let's use it. So everybody's wanting this and statewide if folks are in the weeds and just looking at our feet and what we need right now not at the horizon and the sunrise, long term project and structural changes such as facilities and infrastructure, nothing that's money's done and a few years program done back to square one. So, as are the funding formula they're an opportunity to change the way we envision and deliver our system of education and I fear that the important long range planning will get gobbled up by the immediate needs. And in our region that's due to lack of resources and wanting those needs met. And then I have, excuse me, a bit of data about about about our district, I want to add I did say 20% of our teachers leave every year on average. We have 32 folks on emergency or provisional licenses right now. What that means is these folks don't have amazing amazing teachers hard workers, they don't have a major in what they're teaching. We want to promote stem and math and science and we have one teacher who's teaching sixth, seventh and eighth grade math and science, and they're on a provisional license. Think about the difference between that, and a child in a school who's got a dedicated eighth grade science teacher who really can dive into photosynthesis and plant algae and all these pieces. The inequities are really, really clear and there's more here but you've heard from many, many folks and I just, you know, this morning. I overheard my facilities manager talking to a custodian in one of our schools, and the custodian share that there's water seeping out of the wall and they checked all the pipes, and it's not in the pipes. It ends up that the pipes are copper and they've oxidized because of the wall, and we have to tear out the whole wall. So I've testified here in the past and I've showed lots of pictures and I can tell you from direct experience that the conditions in our areas where we do not have as much funding coming toward us are disproportionate. And I also want to point out, you know, representative till said that the waiting study is an outlier, and it is. And I want to be an outlier. And when I was in a different region of the state we were an outlier, we were ranked in terms of school schools to choose in terms of quality and academics. And now we're an outlier on the other side. And that's because we don't have enough resources and that's the question before us that we really need to address. So I'm happy to take any questions I appreciate you listening to my testimony. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Very simple question. I really appreciate your testimony and it seemed as though you were reading it from something. And I wondered if I could have a copy of it. I don't see it on the legislative website. Yes, I have it here and I generally give it after because when other people testify, I add things. So if I send it ahead of time, sometimes you don't want to send it and then have it redone. So yes, you will, it will be posted. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jen, again, always good to hear from you. You have very good testimony every single time. I'm curious, your list of eight will be on your testimony that you submit to Warren Heiser and company. I'm curious what specifically in S 13 needs to be removed. You know, I'd have to go back when I went through it I went through each of the points and I took them and I shifted them to what it should say, based on my perspective. So, in terms of I think trying to redo a waiting formula, I believe if you read those appendices and Tammy Colby's report, it's pretty, it's pretty well done. And so re looking at waiting is different than applying waiting and understanding how the money impacts and how that feeds into facilities needs. So to answer your question, what needs to be removed is the language of how it's looking at it, so that we're not kicking the can down the road and doing the same work that's already been done, that we are taking it and full force frontal implement what implementation looks like. Okay, thank you. Representative common. Thanks, I'm going to turn off my video because I have an unstable connection. Same question we asked repeatedly here. You know, with all due respect to my fellow school board members across the state I've been a school board member for 15 years. There's no guarantee that this money will be used for the extra taxing capacity will be used for its intended purpose to create equity. So how do we, how would you recommend that we assure that that that school board school boards change over the years might some might say this is a great way for us to attract more people to our community by lowering our tax rates, or we have spent enough in the past 10 years we're going to keep our tax rates low and not put it to that so how do we, how do we, what methods can we use to assure that that money is being used as intended, or that taxing is being used as intended. So when I, in my recommendations, a number two is there needs to be a specific connection and segue between student outcomes and the fiscal investments. And when you look at money that's coming into a district how are people doing academically and there's there's research that shows that people love their community school. No matter if they're, it's a super fantastic or it's really struggling people love it because it's in the community, and it's really important. We know what methods work to get children to learn math or literacy you've been working on the literacy bill, and it's very important that that's focused and detailed and that's how the money works to answer your question. I just want to hold up for you this this little you know flyer that we handed out that I think I brought to you that has you know information about our schools, and prior to you know previously that we weren't saying we have amazing schools we care about education education is important. And what would happen is you have small individual towns who are looking at their own tax rate, and looking at how it's going to impact them. And we have a this year we had one town that couldn't pay its taxes, and the taxes were due I think October and they finally paid, you know later in the year and it's because of the number of high poverty folks. So, what, and I'm answering your question in a roundabout way how do you assure that people aren't just going to say hey lower the taxes great more money lower the taxes. So you have a vision and leadership of your school board and your CEO your, your superintendent, but it's also the requirements that the state has around we want quality schools and you know prior to us, merging school districts we had 186 school boards over the course of, I think 15 school years. That's a lot of different people. We are now able to have a bit more continuity and we have we're able to take the time and to do a vision and strategic priority and base it on academic outcomes. So, one, have specific requirements and then to provide the leadership that allows for really quality education. And my, my, I have a board member who always says look I wasn't, I wasn't elected to a board to be a board member to lower your taxes I was elected to provide the best quality education that a price our community can afford and continuing to talk about quality education is how you do that. So, follow up. Do you think that the current educational quality standards system is strong enough to ensure that the education quality standards, not necessarily the combination of the education quality standards with our consolidated federal program data inventories and the data that's necessary. I think so yes. What Vermont has done though is adopted a bunch of different data collection systems over the years you know and and now what's hard is when that changes, and you're collecting data on math and then two years later it's a different form of data and you can't look at it. So the EQS educational quality standards are very general. It says you need one nurse per 500 children. I would say we want to make sure all of our children are healthy and exercising and doing well on the fitness Graham and knowing that they're improving their physical fitness. So those are the types of things that need to be required and it's important for leaders to invest in that representative representative Murphy. Chair Coopley and this, I'm asking you agenda this question because you were you were the witness at the moment but you may not be the person who has the answer but to the to the argument that it's the intent that money that's freed up that that excess capacity would free up to to spend on schools is intended to be spent rather than to lower tax rates. And I apologize because I think our committee may not have spent as much time so far digging into to the waiting study. But is that is that intent explicit somewhere either in the legislation that that created the waiting study or in possibly in the bill that we're looking at now. I'm just not clear on that. So if I could just talk about that, you know, whether you agree or not with act 46. What our community did is they looked at how is this going to improve education and educational outcomes, and also, how's it going to change our tax rates. The conversation wasn't we're going to lower our taxes that's why we should do this. It wasn't a one sided conversation. And I believe the intent of the what I read from the document is to do both. I don't want to talk about not do both but look at the fiscal side but then look at student performance side as well you have the to go hand in hand. Thanks. And I guess that's not sure that that I still know the answer that question and if anybody else cares to chime in doesn't have to be now but that's a question that I've got. I will turn this over to chair web. I'm going to let you keep going but what I have a question about I'm looking at current equalized pupil for Kingdom East. And I'm looking at I'm not sure what the date is on this. I think it's for if I get this for FY 21, looking at the average equalized people spending would be just a little bit under 17,000. I'm noticing for you, it's 15377, which is significantly below the average and spending. And I'm just wondering, are you, are you putting forth budgets that are failing. I know that you've had trouble with with any bonding but are you finding that your budgets are failing. It's not failed in the last five years when we were unmerged, the Miller's run which it was a combined Sheffield wheelock failed. Yeah, so our spending per equalized pupil at the budget that was just approved is 15940 and excess spending threshold is 18311. Here's here's the case though, is if you increase your at spending per equalized pupil what that does to the tax rate, because of the throttle from Act 46 is it would make the taxes in one town go up 3540% and stay stable. And it's really challenging to have town a say oh wait a second my taxes are going up this much. And so we have to our board has worked really hard to calibrate those together. So you're not it's not doing this. That's a technical term this. I understand those technical terms. Representative Austin. Yes. Thank you. Where are you on the screen or there you are Jen. You know study after study that I've read, and I trust is that the quality of the teacher the caring the skills knowledge of the teacher is the most instrumental factor in advancing student learning. How does student pupil ratio. If, if you have 10 kids in a first grade and you have 23 kids in the first grade. How does that, how does that play into equity. So, we adopted a class size policy, and we are making our class sizes equitable so that someone in one school doesn't have 12 kids and someone in another school has 25. Let me tell you something about the quality of the teacher. When you have let me take Newark Street School which has 65 students. They have a teacher who does K12 and then a teacher who does 345. And you know the teachers been there for 10 years, it can do the multi ages high quality. 20% turnover, the ability to develop those skills across grades in small rural schools is more challenging and that's why you see class sizes in smaller schools, much smaller. And you know we are board has worked really hard to have our class sizes be reasonable and not small and be within the guidelines of what the state has recommended. Did I answer your question. You know, I always look at teachers time as a resource so you know if there's a certain run of kids in a classroom and what their learning styles that student might take up more ratio of their time, you know attention they can spend, you know, 10 minutes or something to a student helping with literacy, but I think in a one to 10 ratio they can spend more time I mean maybe I'm, you know I'm just curious about that, you know in terms of access, you know, to a teacher's time, and their ability to help them, and how again how is it, how can we look at that in an equitable way. And so class size is one piece of the formula. Another piece of the formula is on the other side of class size because if you have 14 children you can have three or four different reading groups, and children are able to push themselves or do theme related reading at different times if there's only seven or eight kids it's that's very different and you don't have that peer support. In terms of, you know, extra help. When you have if you go I've spent a fair amount of time at Columbia Teachers College at their summer rating and writing Institute, and they'll have classes of 25 kids, and they have it really dialed in in terms of kids working independently kids working in small groups, getting support that's pushed in by a special educator or by an interventionist, and the, the extra help, the model that we think of as standing in the front of the room Oh those three kids don't know what they need extra help is very different from really understanding where children are and what their next moves are and then grouping and supporting that embedded in the classroom. And that's where the 20% attrition comes in is because that takes training we spend a lot of money training our faculty and staff. When they get trained, and then they leave and they go to Middlebury or Harwood, or cross at Brooke, then you know we've done the great training and off they go, and we start over again so great thank you. It's always really a pleasure to hear from you. Okay. I am checking to see if I believe we might be finished for now. We have, I believe we've got mounts, not Mansfield coming in tomorrow to speak to this bill as well. I am going to reach out to the Agency of Education to get a little bit more clarity on the eq us and how it factors into the report here to that to the currently s 13 and then we'll be looking to see if we can sort this into in line the immediate specific questions related to s 13 waiting implementation and the other questions that we are addressing that are also relevant to the topic at hand and education funding. So that would be my, my goal, checking with representative answer to see if she has any others, anything she wants to add. Well, I do I want to thank you for inviting us to join you and I understand you're taking testimony tomorrow as well I'm not sure whether what our schedule will be in the morning but if we if you continue to extend the invitation. I will let you know for going to show up depending we've got a one or two other bills that we've got to deal with in our committee, but but I really appreciate being. We appreciate the addition of the questions from your district as well. Yes I see that right now we only have one other district. I want to check to see with the superintendent school boards if they have one one more that might want to also speak. And I think we will then probably we've got information will have information from the field that will help us guide what we're going to be doing. Okay. I think I see no other questions, and I want to thank everybody and I think that we can.