 I think we need to push the crossover. And I just have a fourth and only sense of next week's agenda really has been constructed, tentatively, because one seems to be a fairly likely outcome is that we hit the crossover and that leadership views that as a moment to take a break as opposed to calling the breaks now with two days to come. So all the way to saying I'm reluctant to set up the agenda for the next week, but we have a very clear agenda for the next few days. So if you... We've got a break until what, when next year? I don't know. I mean, people throw around, you know, a month, two weeks, three weeks. I agree with you. I think it's here to stay for a while. And then how do you... I suppose if everybody were to take that month break, you might be able to slow it down, but since it's happening institution by institution and school district by school district, there will be some states where they underperform and I just think it's going to be with us for a few weeks. Can you keep the same adjournment? Or would they try to add it? Well, I mean, these are all follow-on questions. You know, if you talk to some people, they will say, we should just punt to the budget, complete the budget, and that's how we have the transportation bill and the capital bill and go home. But, you know, every committee's done a half a session worth of work, so I'm hopeful that whatever solution we come up with that involves an in-game where we at least have a chance that they're on priority. Speaking of which, I put this on your desks and I guess I'll walk us through it because this isn't from Jim. It's incorporating Jim's language and some theory discussion and some ideas that I had. I'll just read through it and verbally annotate it a little bit with the understanding that it's not vetted legal language. Jim will tell me if I'm all face. I just rewrote it upstairs. What's up? I just rewrote this upstairs for you. Okay. But do you have the rewritten number? No. There's one paragraph leading down but actually it's very, my rewrite is like very small stuff. Okay. Yeah. So instead of finding section 11 of number 173 of the 2018 acts and resolves directed the agency of education to undertake a study examining and evaluating current formula used to weight economically disadvantaged students in which learned secondary level of preschool students in the law. At the same time, the study was to consider whether new cost factors should be included in the law. People calculation, December 20th. They're reference to preschool. I don't think preschool was part of that. At least Tammy said that she was instructed to do preschool. Oh, okay. So we're going to eliminate that. I was just responding to the wrong amount of chart that she put on this. She put it in the wrong order. Okay. Wasn't part of the chart. Yeah. The 446 wasn't asked to look at that. So, yeah. The December 2019 findings produced by EDM-led team researchers that put emotional efforts on student weighting for a stark quote. This is all from the Tammy Covey's report. Neither the factors considered by the current formula nor the value of the weight to reflect temporary education circumstances like costs according to the research team. More on settling, so was there finding that quote, values for the existing weights have weak ties, if any, with evidence describing the difference in costs in educating students with disparate needs or operating schools in different contexts. I was corrected to this situation. The major recommendations in the report are straightforward. Let the legislature increase certain of the existing weights and add population density to morality as a new weighting factor. Given the reports finding that rural districts pay more to educate students than what happened historically underfunded in this regard. Given the state-of-the-art nature of Vermont's education funding system, however, the reality that any change in the weight formula will increase fluctuation in tax rates across the map. Legislature has chosen to develop a phase approach to implementation of the finding. And then this goes into Jim's language. It adds, as per Ruth's suggestion, that they develop the plan of implementation in collaboration with SBE and stakeholders from the education community, lists a few. And then this is basically what Jim had for what the plan shall include. And then on the next page, as part of this collaboration with the Agency of Education on the Suspension A of this section, honored before December 1, 2020, the State Board of Education shall hold not less than six public meetings in different regions of the state, both to help educate the public about the financial realities of the weighting formula and any changes there, too, and to gather public input on the weighting reports for proposed implementation. This testimony, the Board shall refer to the Agency of Education between the input performance plan and the implementation. Then they give it to us by December 15. That gives the committees of jurisdiction and the money committees a couple of weeks to look it over and see what they think. Section 3 is an explicit marker that there has to be a vote to activate this plan implementation. During the first year of the 2020-21, 2020-22 biennium House and Senate committees on education will consider the Agency's plan implementation, making such changes as they do necessary. A positive vote for both the House and the Senate will see that this government will then be responsible for the plan implementation. I know that people will know those visits and know it would require a governor's signature but I wanted to make it clear that everybody at every level in January will look at that report and then have to sign off before it goes into effect. So let's make sure we can pass it up signature, so... Oh, yeah, yeah. Yeah, so we'll do it just now. Fair. So this was an attempt to add a little bit of context in the findings and then to clarify the kind of implementation process that at least I'm hoping to put into motion. So it would be... it would go into effect on passage. That would leave about six or seven months before the implementation plan is due. So that gives the agency time. It gives the board time to do their thing. I did speak with John Carroll about the idea of the board going on into the stage. He really liked that idea. He thinks that's the sort of thing they should be doing. And we have Emily here. Any thoughts immediately, Emily? We do not believe the legislature. We do believe the legislation should just take up the important issue and the study directly and we do not support the agency of that education and the state board as well. Okay, so the agency's position would be that we should implement an agency or step? You should take the action to put the recommendations of the study that you think are best. So comments on this or what Emily just said or questions for Jim about the downing So in terms of the findings I think that the sentence neither the factors considered by the current formula nor the weights of blah blah blah I'm a little not sure how I feel about the more unsettling and the fact that the current value so the weights have been in existence for a long time and maybe they never had any basis, maybe they did they didn't find any evidence either way they certainly don't now but school funding formulas are usually not changed in a major way for 20 to 25 years so the point where we are at right now is not actually unique to school funding formulas across the nation they usually are in existence for a couple decades before there are major overhauls to them so I guess I wouldn't want to overstate that we have done something any radically different than any other state that this is just part of the process of updating a school finance formula and so making sure that it's that the current values as they currently exist don't have weak ties well according to the research team the weighting factors as they currently currently existing I'm not sure but something in that and getting rid of the more unsettling I'm not that's I'm not sure I mean the whole findings things always kind of become problematic for me but suppose we kept the first quote according to the research team semicolon the team also found that quote values for the existing weights having ties sure the current values for putting in current values and then in the next sorry Jim the that the legislature increased certain of the existing weights and then add I think we should say the existing weights for poverty and English language learners the next sentence as a corrective to the situation the major recommendations of the report are straightforward that the legislature increased certain weights and you want to list which ones and they also didn't they all didn't the report also say to increase not only poverty and ELL but also secondary they added the middle school thing but yeah that's in here yeah I didn't I didn't list which but there are several that are that remain the same and then change so do you want to list the ones that well I think I want to make it clear that it's not just reality that is the issue it's all it's in fact even more significantly poverty and ELL for their so those are going to increase yeah yeah do you want to if you're suggesting that we list them specific yeah okay where they've been listed is there already oh I see okay then that's fine but I guess okay that's what the study was yeah yeah yeah I think naming specifically but then like and the historically underfunded that I think there's not exactly how to say it but because budgets are are determined at the local level they have the local level has up up underweighted maybe not underfunded they could have funded them they just wanted to raise the taxes historically underfunded in this regard in other words there are a number of factors about how they reach their funding one of them is the waiting form one of them is one of them is their builders etc I mean it seems to me that the upshot of the report is that it's saying that the current values don't reflect the costs and have it for decades so that's why I use the phrase historically underfunded but I'm not wed to it it just seems to me something that's thrown on its face if you accept the report Court? I don't I don't I don't I'm 20 years old right but the waiting formula predates that's people will of course want to that was trying to solve a different problem that's trying to solve a different problem but people confuse them I heard that in the testimony yesterday I mean we don't have to have that maybe just stop it I pay more to educate a student I was also trying to reflect some of the testimony we heard last night every witness this was part of their message we have been ignored for a long time captured that in the last inflammatory my question also and I am sensitive to what Emily said and would like to hear a little more from her but in terms of the logistics of this on or before December 1st 2020 the state board shall hold those hearings and then on or before no later than December 15th develop a plan and submit it to these committees but given that there's an election before then do these committees actually exist? how does that work? so it would still be us even if none of us get re-elected the constitution of the committee might have changed and similarly with the agency there's no lack of continuity because of the election is that what you're saying? well I guess just practically speaking who's how would the education committee then be able to react between December 15th and the start of the session well typically these reports go to the chairs and whether we're voted in or out we're still the chairs until so there's time to do a couple of weeks of looking, talking sharing with leadership, etc kind of preparing the ground you know given the rate at which incumbents are returned I tend to believe that almost all of us who are running are coming back probably so I don't worry about it in that regard and it's very common to try to use that period to have a couple of months before the session starts to get something I mean we could make it January first it's just it won't push it back no I mean I think December 15th is fine I'm just curious about practically how it would work since I haven't been here during that interim session before and then yeah I guess I'm how's the fun stop using me good I got a question with a margin very well now I do have other questions I'm just curious to hear more from Emily about her thought from the agency since she's the designated agency person in the room you can say more about that sure so the agency does not have the capacity or expertise to do this work for you you should have a minimum of appropriate funds for a contract that will be written for a party that does have the expertise and the capacity our secretary had immediate concerns about this swamping agency including the implementation of Act 73 on hold since this is at the same time as those final stages of Act 7 so that was the answer that Rebecca Holcomb gave me when we initially passed the legislative requirement to do the study and so we ultimately did pay 250,000 the study that Professor Cole did but given that the findings are there and this directs implementation of those values it's hard for me to see how this would swamp the agency that's both the guy who runs it understood and then to go to your point the direction here in year 2a is to use the weighting changes under the heading new weight derived from models of control for students with disabilities I was just going to pull it up and refresh my memory it's in an executive summary and your comment that that's sufficiently clear does that leave decisions with agencies in May within the report there are several options that you can take within the report yeah I the way it's set up here is that I don't know if everybody has the executive summary but if you don't so it's this page 5, there's a table and so it's the values on the far right of that table and that is the values and this coming out of our discussion this does not adjust for students with disabilities and it does not attempt to get rid of the small school grant but with two options that's going to work for now so this is the simplest of the options and leaves in place the category for grants okay I'm looking at that table my reading of the report and I think what I can do it again was that for any recommendation where a population gets into the weight recommended that that would include the small school grant as it exists okay I have a discussion with Professor Colby that wasn't the question I got but if that's the case then it simplifies our life for real more because it would take out the necessity of calculating the small school grant I think what it works is it's a one stage for population density it's just a population per square mile calculation if a small school grant you have to both meet the population density requirement and have low enough enrollment in school so it's a double test to get to but so that's how it works so this would in and of itself you know no this would not be my view at least you can then decide you want to add a small school grant that would be dependent upon the population density test in a heavy small school I had asked Professor Colby last night for the simplest strict down recommendation without the small school grant and without students with disabilities figured in and this was which I thought we should confirm that that was the comment the small schools grant I think it's a policy decision as to whether or not we get rid of the small schools grant I mean in my opinion doing both is overkill and that we do the rural reality measure that she proposes there's not a need for the small schools grant or it's double counting that sort of small rural school issue and so I guess to Emily's it is that there are a number of policy decisions that have to be made in order to create an implementation plan and what is your alternative plan you know I ideally we would have started working on this immediately this session and put together a proposal to move forward with how we were going to implement it and made those policy decisions through our what we did not do that so for now then I think having and this is what I was trying to argue before is that we have some kind of implementation committee that would include the secretary of education or his designee and various players and that we have an implementation that makes recommendations to the then to the legislature about the policy decisions they want to make and I think we could designate that recommendation ability to the secretary and say we want to hear what you're recommending for these policy decisions but then it would put him in the position of recommending do we keep small schools grants or not do we which scenario do we should we do do we include special education do we you know what do we do with the spending caps what do we do with merged versus unmerged districts these kinds of policy decisions and certainly you make recommendations and we can take them relieve them I think it's a waste of time frankly to an analyst because we we just paid a quarter of a million dollars for a very authoritative study committee what we're lacking is an actual climate implementation from the agency that will be in charge of them I'm not suggesting a study committee you're suggesting to have the secretary make these decisions these policy decisions and make an implementation what are we asking him to implement he's talking about the climate implementation which we will then work on that's what the language says so if we don't like something that the agency has done we will change it and bring it to the floor so we're not surrendering our policy what we are saying that we want the agency to come to us with a plan in terms of how will we face this in the next three years so that we don't wind up in a situation where we say to them do this and then they take an additional year to create how they're going to do it that's the way it usually works this tries to save a little bit of time but it's almost immediately directing them to create their plan of implementation which we can review and then authorize or not the plan of implementation is deciding how we want the new formula to be it's deciding on a funding formula so it's making policy decisions about what the new formula is the language gives them so it makes the signal policy decision which is use this category of weights and then create a phased implementation the which weights though the ones that are described in the language as new weight derived from models with controls for SWD so I understand the agency's reluctance I think they would prefer usually not to be directed to do X, Y, or Z in this case we need them to do this, we need Brad James others to work on this which they will do anyway whether it be what we're calling a plan of implementation I think this is a way for the agency to get their heads around to produce a plan that will then be massaged when it gets into the building and also for the State Board to be simultaneously to be averaged in various communities so with respect to this last suggestion I guess there are two possibilities on the table I've outlined one in this I think what Ruth is talking about is significantly different it's another study committee it's not another study committee it's more like a work group or an implementation making policy decisions and then making proposals but they won't come up with an agency author plan they will come up with a group of stakeholders believe this that's what we get from any task force study committee we can also do a legislative implementation committee that is essentially members of the legislature that recommends policy this is what we as the members, the designated members of the two education committees and finance committees recommend we couldn't because we're the policy makers that need to make these policy decisions because it really is a mathematical formula that we have to figure out what are the factors we want in the mathematical formula that we want to then focus on school districts in the interest of time I'd like to straw pull the committee on these approaches so we'll definitely spend more time working on this but if the committee wants to go with the agency approach then I'd rather not continue the discussion about whether we have another kind of committee so where are the agencies that don't want to do that or I don't think we are I don't support the leading study period so I'm not going to open anything that progresses it what do you mean you don't support the study like you don't support implementing the study or you don't think the study exists study exists I can create any study but any kind of way so it's really the you don't support making any changes to the way the formula is not the changes that are proposed I don't mind the agency I have trust in them to do it they will need to they will want to do it anyway it's a distinction without a difference because if we just hand it to them they'll do it if we tell Brad James this is what you need to put in your formula in your spreadsheet because we've made the policy decisions that this is what the way it's going to be and this is the number of years we're going to take to implement it and this is what we're going to do with small schools grants and this is what we're going to do with X, Y and Z he will program his formula to run the school aids formula for school districts just like that's what he will do in this case but then the agency will have to make the policy decisions about what to include or exclude now we have made the basic policy decisions here what we've asked them to do is tease out and this goes back to your original point to tease out interactions with F1, F3 etc which this asks them to do as they create a phase approach so the agency supports implementing the weighting study if we told them we want you to do it here are the values do it right now they would have to do this work anyway they would have to sit down and discuss are there problems with this do we need to create a different timeline do we need to watch out for this intersection with this piece of law etc they're always going to be doing that work so whether we ask them to create an implementation report or ask them to just implement it they're going to still do the same kind of work do you see a difference Emily I mean I I will call the witnesses we're right now strong so I do need to hear from the other two questions so these three items here at the bottom of the first page that would be the policy direction that's your intention that's the policy direction they would begin to be able to see and that's what they would use so they have the values they know we want it done over three years and what we're asking for is a plan that will also a consideration of the new form of this interaction with other provisions that exist in the law including excess spending penalty whole harmless that's the kind of thing that Brad James routinely does so what I what I view this as is giving them relatively solid parameters in terms of the weights, the number of years for implementation and then asking them over a course of six or seven months to formalize it into a plan Thanks Ruth, a question Ruth, so if this was to happen seems like what you want to happen would happen maybe next January like that then we would get the report back and then we as a committee and other committees obviously but we would then have those same discussions and where we would decide we agree or don't agree with what the agency has done right so you're feeling that we're just kind of missing an opportunity to get involved early that we then have to like react to their study instead of it seems like we get there with what you want but we just have to they kind of set the table then we come to the table then we could change it but we have to react to what they did I guess my concern is that this is out there and people are already interpreting it in the way that they want and we have barely done any work on it we took a very small amount of testimony we had testimony from the author we had a public hearing we had a public hearing and we heard from the a visit to a district we heard from the author of the report we took testimony that's more than we've done for most issues but we haven't discussed as a committee the decisions about the policy decisions that would have to be made about the things that you list and the factors that are going to come up so what we're asking is we're asking the agency to do that work that we didn't do that work and that then next year we'll review the agency's plan for implementing it and then decide whether we like the implementation plan or not and so we I yes we may get to the same point but then the agency's plan is going to be out there and people are going to make assumptions about that agency plan and it's going to have that people are going to and then we'll either we're going to be reacting to it actually we didn't really like the thing that the secretary recommended and how to deal with these things so it seems to me that it adds a staff that doesn't necessarily need to be in there that once we make the decisions we then tell the secretary this is how we want you to do it I think that given the state that we're I think that is the ideal situation given the timing and the crossover and need to move forward on so I'm I'm okay with really doing that work in January basically saying let's have and maybe there's wording changes here like who's involved or something but I think I'd be okay with reacting to how the agency addresses this issue without a more detailed plan on how to do it yeah I I think Andrew has summarized where I would look at it too I mean I don't think it's necessarily ideal but especially if there's a contention with the agency from which we had the experience in the past and that's always an unfortunate situation but I would like to move ahead as quickly as possible and just give them some parameters and they aren't going to any of you right James is going to do work regardless and we need for him to and I'll be here in January but you guys can and when when we in the past when we either contemplated or passed and they would be so small AOE works in the off season and they very helpfully when the next session they come to me with things like we're asking here what are the unintended consequences of this how does this interact with this piece going into the effect etc so I don't think that this will be a huge amount of work for them what what there might be is some you know as we've experienced some people who are really passionate in favor of it and some people who are really skeptical of it and the agency will have to absorb that public pressure but then it will shift back to us in January when we are in the plan go forward for that you want to hear my comments on the wording are we at this point so I will consider that we're taking this approach and now we're working on the wording so on the final paragraph of the findings I feel like I remember a conversation before that we had other concerns other than just the tax rates and I think it would be good to reiterate those in the findings which I think are captured in number 3 we're asking for these there are other issues that need to be dealt with one of the reasons we're not implementing it right away is because it is complicated I think it would be good to say that in the findings we'll say oh you're only doing this because you're worried about tax rates we're like well no that is an issue but there are some real questions about that we list here in 3 that need to be considered as a reason why we're not doing it right away and not just tax rates what would you suggest adding there well I guess it would be what's in 3 I don't know if there's other things but basic 3 below is the things that they're doing because we're asking them to do those things because we don't there's issues right so I'm assuming because we're asking do the things in 3 those are reasons why we're not implementing the weighting studies now so I just think it would be good to if we're going to have a comment about why we're doing this if we're going to have it in the law in the findings I would rather be more than just fluctuations in tax rates because that's what it looks like we could just eliminate that for a pair right if we don't want to say that doesn't have to be in the law we can just say that when people ask us why aren't you doing it right away well it's complicated because also I wondered about phase approach to implement the findings you guys are more familiar with the study but I think the finding says other things in the findings other than the weighting studies but really it's a question about phase approach to implementing of and these other issues so I thought that part of that sentence to which would you prefer now that I think about it I kind of like maybe you get rid of that force paragraph I'm okay with getting rid of it I don't feel like it needs to be in there but if we want to have a statement on why well I do think though that some people feel like we ought to go faster so I think it's not a bad idea to have something in there why it needs to be faced in the window people want us to do it yesterday they want it instant so I mean what I would recommend if we're going to keep it the reality that the change in tax rates across the map and other complicating factors are probably saying we've chosen to develop I mean have we developed chosen to develop a phased approach or we've just asked them to write a study about that no it says under one that we want a timeline for phasing in over three years so that's that's a decision for us too I put three years and I put a phased approach because it seemed like our discussions have been moving in that direction does anybody think three is too long or too short I don't know I mean like you know everything just takes a while for people to get used to I mean I think a one year hit on some of those communities especially like I know one fifty two cents that would be you'd have the opposite at the state house that we had yesterday a lot but but it gradually gets there and allows them to prepare and sell at homes or go there today yeah okay so Jim did you well in terms of complexity yeah I would just propose on the second line there and the reality of that any change is complex and will produce flexibility tax rates right involves a number of complex factors yeah you know or yeah involves the interactions with other state education policies that need to be considered this is what I'd like to be clear that there's really other things that are happening that interact with it that need to be figured out and we did here in Winooski that immediately might be difficult on their budget right right they couldn't you got a higher and then I worry that implementation of the findings is too broad I mean my understanding of the study is that there's a lot of other findings is it all the findings? we have special education for example that we're not asking them so we can say the legislature has chosen to develop a phased approach to revising the formula yeah non-operating districts just so I remember that's the districts that don't have schools right that's another one of the complicities that might be one of the most complicated things I can think of actually because you have a school district that's tuition that pays for the average tuition that the school they're going to so that's like $15,000 but under the lay-in formula that kid could cost $40,000 so they'll get $40,000 will it be based on the kid because well this is the issue it's very complicated because they're paying tuition $15000 but the kid costs $40,000 they're getting taxed $40,000 but they're only paying $15,000 so obviously there has to be some adjustment there but Jim isn't if you tuition your child out you send this the initial payment sending school and then partway through the year or toward the end of the year you get a second bill and then you have to make that up so there's always a balance for well in town let's say sending to well in high school so they send the initial there's another bill that follows that they have to pay at their discretion really we brought in town wouldn't have these say is that how that will still be this way now this is what needs to be be explored here I think because there's this issue my concern is that the sending time gets the ADM count so the not tuition district gets the ADM count of that trial what's the ADM? so it goes into their class people calculation they get the tax benefit if it's a very expensive child they should get a tax benefit under the new formula but that under the current law would be passed over to the receiving district because that's got to educate that it's a very expensive child so there's a whole issue about sending to the receiving schools you've had this debate for years right I'm not a money falling child but this points out in a historical way I think and then to what the receiving town gets the tuition rate which is lower than what would be the weighted value of the student if it's student in poverty student in poverty and an EL it's exactly the kind of policy decision that needs to be made before this can be implemented right which I want to make sure we say that's why we're why we can't do it right away so the agency will will attempt to work out those problems they'll come to us with their plan for how to deal with that and then we'll like that tuition in town piece maybe we don't like what they come up with we change up the plan that goes to the senate so we're not giving up with this any of our policy making nobody who votes for it is giving up the right to say no it's just moving it to a stage where it will be ready to implement with green market if we like it one question I have for your direction you're getting direction in lots of areas for one area we're wondering about are they benefits from act-based convergers the incentives so for example there's a governor on how cash rates can change 100% and there's obviously sponsored grants became mergers support grants so my only question here is do you want to give direction to the state board sorry the agency of education not to mess with those incentives well in your language you mentioned it as one thing for them to consider incentives created under act 46 and again I think in the context of the plan they put together they'll make a decision same with the excess spending penalty because when Chloe did her calculations she waived the excess spending penalty because this was going to send more districts over that I think that makes sense but the agency as they put this together have it as one data point along the other and they'll come to us and explain how they can mesh together and if we agree then we can green light it otherwise we'll change it one other word in question be on the second page midway through that paragraph this testimony the board shall refer I rewrote that you rewrote that you don't like being like you plus I wasn't 100% sure what the testimony was other thoughts about what's here so we already discussed changing section three so that it doesn't say a signature of the government since the government do you have enough sense of how to redraft? I have enough sense in my own questions is timely because I can do this right now and be back in half hour where we can go under the miscellaneous bill whatever you want to do why don't we go talk tomorrow so if you can bring it back tomorrow I want to give Emily a chance to go back and talk to the secretary if he wants to give me a call we can discuss it I don't want to there's no new related vote on the second so can I speak to this okay you want to give him a call Don Collin call me to testify he couldn't make the meeting before hey Don it's over from senate education how are you can you hear me Don? I can hear you now yes okay so welcome to senate education again Don used to sit in that chair but I'm here with the committee Senators Ingram parents McNeil, Hardy and Perchlich yeah and we have some people in the room with us and we are talking about the idea that you and I discussed for moving ahead on the waiting study very good very good and I know how things happen so my remarks are based on what the bill looked like yesterday right that your staff assistant gave you a copy of what I forwarded today yes if I could have a few moments I would just like to go through it with you yeah please Don and I did not use the term honorable loosely I know that you're all very hard working on this honorable people but it's not a good way to start off on the right side you know I have been involved in a school business for quite a few years and I want to be very transparent that I am a school board member here but I think it's my 15th year but as far as the study waiting study of the superintendent and myself first heard about it at the conference the superintendent super conference and I believe at least one of the member has gone to some presentation has some knowledge about the information to us at a meeting earlier but with the new merge district and building a budget teaching negotiations we haven't spent a lot of time but it is on our agenda for our next meeting it will be more about making sure everybody has read it get their questions together and then we will spend time on it over the next month because it is of interest and school board members say what's happening with this what will it do so I just want people to know I am a citizen I'm speaking as a citizen today but certainly I'm involved in education I'm just so impressed when I hear Tammy and the other people speak about the work they've done I've read a lot of reports I've always been interested in research and I just give them the highest accommodations for the quality of the work and I do think it has a major impact I've been lucky enough to live through and be a part of the union school movement of the 60s and 70s and then certainly more recently Act 40 section I think this one has greater potential to change the quality of education for our young people than probably either one of them in my mind although the union school movement certainly was very significant for the time that happened so I go on to say how important I think it is and I think action needs to happen now and I'm very pleased Senator to think that you are taking this up and that you do have some thoughts you put forward which I just have to agree with but I think that keeping it moving is going to be critical having been a member of the state board I'm very pleased that you are suggesting that they be involved they are our lawmakers on the ground they represent our communities certainly as well as appeal of education so involving both of those groups is wonderful one little aside I would suggest that when the space schedule is made up if this moves forward in this manner that every legislator whose district or area in which they are going to appear be notified and be asked to attend invited to attend legislators need to understand this and having been a little bit involved in the legislature at an earlier time I know sometimes it's really difficult to engage legislators who feel that they have so many other things on their plate so this would be a good opportunity for legislators who want to and need to become more involved to go to those sessions and I think that it would be helpful for everyone you know I think I do go on as mentioned the UVM personnel Tammy and others JFO I would hope that we have some money to put behind this to support these people and even help the state board it appears to me at times a little aside that the state board is being starved that when I was there I was staffing and it did make a difference but putting those aside I do like the idea wholeheartedly support the idea of agents here at the state board taking some leadership so that's really good I know there are people out there I know some people last night were at the state house and they want action now and hopefully I hope for something immediate will make a difference personally I respect them and I'm in agreement with them but I also know that the process takes time if it's going to be done well there needs to be a lot of dialogue a lot of data collection there needs to be engagement by all the stakeholders I attended my report I think a little differently and pretty much said it needs to happen now but now would probably be the next session which is next January so I appreciate it I respect two people I appreciate the chance to talk I also know that a thoughtful process engaging both the two the people is the only thing that's going to make this work but it really does need to work the young people of Vermont deserve it it's not going to mean a lot of money necessarily going to school districts but it is going to have an impact as people sit around and always ask that question at budget time what's it going to do to my taxes so I just want to much what I wish to say well thank you very much Don that's helpful any questions from the committee to Don well thanks again for your years of service to the educational community Don tell Senator Pan I'm going to be betting his ear I believe I arranged for his first trip to the state house he was a good supporter of a Democratic candidate alright have a good day Don stay safe thank you very much for your time thank you okay so let's see Jim Jim do you have a new miscellaneous well it's new as a couple weeks ago we haven't been through it so it's worth going through 6.1 we have been through we have not been through it so let's do that then so we'll put this aside Jim will come back tomorrow with a revised draft um of course one uh yes draft 2.1 2.4 this would be 6.1 of another bill that's my draft get 2.6 2.7 2.4 Ruth is this your new binder? yes I'm sorry Jim what is that number? 6.1 I have a 5.1 I have a 5.1 is this one of those ones that goes in reverse order? no I don't think we have I have a 5.1 this 6.1 was of another bill yeah I have a 5.1 too 2.1 the bill is introduced I said to you actually a while ago because it may have been before the break she could just does everybody else have coffee? I have no okay I think it's 6.1 before the break it's a while ago so we're going to go committee then let's take a 10 minute break we'll come back with 3.5 so we're walking through draft 6.1 of STQ-4 which is the Miscellaneous Education Bill the records you've never read the console the changes as usual are in yellow the first yellow we have is way up on page 9 so this is a series of James I'm sorry before we go on did Ruth give you her did you drop that? I did no I haven't asked to put it in the bill okay but it is the same this is the bill where that would go yeah so there's a section in the bill right now it's section 5 on page 6 and that language that you have there for kind of harding we'll go here okay page 5 on page 6 okay oh page 6 okay okay so we're walking through changes in the bill and then we'll go to your okay correct okay so we're going to go to page page 9 the music changes that you passed out last year they do two things they dates from this timeline that we went through in January and what I mentioned to you then was that while the census base funding was delayed by a year and the SB rules were delayed by a year all the intermediate dates in the bill had not been changed so this fixes that it changes all those dates to make it conform with the date changes you made last year the second thing this section does is there are various technical changes that were discussed about these years okay so Jim the fact that this is in yellow but not on your mind means there's underline well so if it's in yellow but it's not on the line it's currently off yellow just means a new change to this draft last draft didn't have this and I said that's why it's yellow didn't have the whole section didn't have any of this stuff so as usual we're just talking about underlining yep yep so keep going keep going okay so walks through this language okay so first change is from AOE on line 13 page 9 so this is definition of lots of membership and I think it's a clarifying change it's the most recent three school years for which that are available and then the next change is page 10 this is now another recommendation by the agency this is now used in that term launch on membership rather than used in the reference to AVM for this year so conforming basically both and then line 6 is a date change over the new dates likewise it's page 11 these are all date changes on first half the page when you get down to line 14 these are technical changes requested by the agency we really around changing the word expenditure or cost to fund funding that brings you over to page 12 this is the change requested by the agency again this is the ability to use some funds for unusual special education costs destructing out the language from 11 through 14 that has a 2% buffer there for this purpose and now it says especially when you use funds for all special education expenditures has to fund by the state board to directly assess use with expenditures of unusual unexpected nature so then it says these funds should be appropriated in the amount of 2% times as this grant so I think Emily's best could best describe why this language is changing but that's because of the nature of the changes next section is transition so again in page 18 there's a timeline here there's a reference on page 11 line 11 to require any IDA reporting as well that came from the second of the agency line 19 is the date changes again to build this timeline next section I'm going to the UVM the DSC board so these are just changes that came up from the last time you talked about this so now line 5 the UVM is composed of 20 men and 5 women currently then line 11 we change the language to say members who identify as women yes that's the language you want likewise on page 13 for the DSC board then it says the UVM self-appreciating board members have an obligation to address the board their balance and the appointment of the trustees and then likewise on line 18 talking about their assembly it says those are pointed by their assembly and those are pointed by self-appreciating trustees as well as student trustees it's also incumbent on the executive branches to reach out for their balance and then page 15 sub D now reads on before July 31, 2021 and as part of their annual budget presentations to the assembly UVM and DSC shall provide a minimum of the most recent 5 years of information on the agenda composition of their respective boards this information should include the appointment entity and the appointment date and the service to summarize recruitment and replace the strategies employed for recently expired services questions for Jim on so I don't know how the committee is feeling about this bill it feels pretty done I would say let's let the special education language lay over till tomorrow but we are capacity basically last year so the only draft I think is a wellness plan so we have draft 2 I have a quick question on this we are going to have people of color to this for UVM or is it just for 95 women we are going to change it from 12 to 13 members we are going to identify it as women who are going to be also in that color do we decide I thought the trust of our discussion would not yet just fix on the gender balance right now and part of my reasoning there is UVM is 60% female but it is it's I want to say 3% people of color so the composition of the board and the ratio is not seriously out of black except that you have 1 2 African American men as opposed to other racial groups but the proportion matches the proportion of the student body whereas women is every class we have women in the classroom meaning staff well no I would say overall the faculty overall are about 47% women but some departments are blind on the majority but again if it goes to the housing they want to expand potential racial element Jim I think that is a great question something we should be very conscious of so I appreciate that you asked okay exactly Ruth do you want to tell us what what happened here so the wellness program I guess if we are going to include a new wellness program provisions in the bill I would request your support of this draft the reason being is that after hearing from Tina and the students who came in I did some research on school wellness programs and there is already statutory language in the existing statutes that is relevant to school wellness programs I talked to both AOE and the Department of Health and there is a section of statutes 16 BSA 136 that is about wellness programs and includes an advisory council on wellness and comprehensive health that is not active right now so one suggestion was to reinvigorate this council and broaden the definition of wellness program as you know I had concerns that it was just fitness and nutrition so at the bottom of page 4 on this draft it would include the comprehensive health education as defined in section 31 of this title and that includes a lot of things but first aid and disease prevention particularly relevant right now family health and mental health personal health habits, consumer health human growth and development substance use abatement or whatever nutrition, sexual abuse and sexual violence so it's a much broader definition and you can look at it and each of those are defined and described so adding that as part of wellness beyond just nutrition and fitness then these are existing on page 3 the existing duties of this council I did get rid of this one duty about collecting the height and weight of students in kindergarten through grade 6 I can't find evidence that they do this and it made me uncomfortable just having school report on the height and weight of their students to department of health and then the wellness policy report was which is what the thrust of this was is on page 4 and this just says that the agency in collaboration with the advisor council on wellness this council would update and distribute to school districts model school wellness policy they already do do this you can see they have a model school wellness policy that they give to school districts already it does mostly include just fitness and nutrition and they do check these every 3 years there's a review under federal law where the agency has to review the school wellness policies and grade them so they already do that and the results are on the website they already collect a bunch of data the YRBS the youth risk behavioral survey they do and so a lot of what Tina was asking for they already do and this would just broaden it and re-institute this council another thing is that I guess on page 2 I changed the with expert at least 3 members with expertise in health services health education or health policy before it was just health services field I know somebody who used to serve on this who's a pediatrician so that's kind of a person that they have and saying that they have to meet not less than twice a year so this was my attempt to work within what already is done with AOE I talked to both Susan Yesilonia and Rosie Krieger at AOE Rosie is the school nutrition program director and Susan Yesilonia was in here at one point I think she testified or listened to testimony she's the health and wellness sort of coordinator for the department and works with school nurses school health teachers and PE teachers I've sent them the draft I haven't heard back from them I think they're probably a little busy with this current crisis going on but this is basically based on their recommendation so I talked to them both on the phone and the other thing that Tina Zook had wanted was that AOE collect all the local policies and post them on the AOE website that creates a lot of problems for AOE because every time they post something on their website through software that makes sure it's accessible and so with hundreds of these policies coming in it would be a kind of heavy lift to do it and every time they update their policy so these policies are posted on local school board sites so if Tina or her research team wants to get them they can go to the local school board site so the one thing that Tina had asked when I talked to her she and I have talked a couple times about it is that she is very interested in maintaining some kind of connection to this whole school whole child or whole child model, the WSCC so I said that potentially we could say that she'll be in compliance with all accepted best practices such as the whole school well that was my question so I think this was fine the one thing that I'm wondering about is page 6 in our journal as I remember the testimony they were saying that the existing policy which I think you just had scored significantly lower than 85% and so that's why they specifically wanted to have a target score that was higher to force a real rewriting so in the language on page 4 of your draft truth I'm wondering it just calls for them to update because I imagine they would argue that what they've already got complies with relevant state defender laws and best practices so they could do a cosmetic update and just it does comply with state federal laws and best practices but it's only limited to health and nutrition or to nutrition and fitness and so this would broaden it out to these other health factors and it would be right now it's just done by the agency this would reinvigorate this council that would have to work on it and what the agency said about what Rosie was specifically saying about this whole school model is that it's one of the nationally accepted best practices it's not the only one and so there are other ones that you can use to measure school policies and so this is the one that the American Heart Association would prefer that they use but you could probably ask the American whatever association and they would say oh this is the one we think is the best it actually in here and this is online I can send you the link I think I actually linked to it in the email that I forwarded to you this actually refers to the whole school whole child already it provides links to it it provides a whole like tool kits whole school, whole child improvement tool it calls out school districts that have really good policy I mean it's hugely comprehensive they already basically are doing this work this would just so I guess I'm fine with either going with my proposal and adding in such as Tina was okay with that or just doing nothing and saying what AOE already does I don't have I'm not comfortable with the language that Tina proposes because it's it's really specific to what the American Heart Association thinks it's the best thing well I like the American Heart Association well yeah but it's there I think that's fine but they're just one of many but to go back to page 6 what I like about it is it's directive for positive change so the agency has to update and redesign with an eye on achieving 85% on this WSCC tool sponsored by the University of Connecticut that's you know it's a very you can't argue with it if you're the agency you just have to meet that standard whereas the language on your page 4 unless I'm missing some way that it will obligate them it seems like they could almost not do anything based on that because it says a model policy of compliance and national safety best practices and I can't believe that they wouldn't justify this after they already have it well I think they would say they already have it for nutrition and where does it add the other because the wellness program the page 1 down here at the bottom wellness program means a program that includes comprehensive health education as defined in section 131 of this title and what is that that's where Senator Harrier was just reading from there's a big list of things about how kinds of health and safety and so it expands the requirement from this fitness can we specify that on page 4 what we can do is we can cross reference back to the definition of wellness as revised by this act and that would tie it back that they should more directly making it clear that this expands from what they currently do in positive right I mean you don't have to make that value judgment for somebody reading and it will first of all any argument about whether they need to is there an easy way to do that and you can add such as the that model with those changes I think it's fine that I like the addition of the advisory council yeah she didn't know that this existed in current law she didn't seem to know that this existed even though all this is on their website so AOEs not that hard to find so it was it made me a little suspicious but she was fine with this draft I told her I would I would ask the committee if we could add that one line I explained to her about the website thing and then I just this morning or yesterday can't remember saw the department of health person and said this was the direction we were and they are very excited to have this council back up and running if this goes through any questions for Jim about this okay so what if why don't we end for the day and Jim if you think tomorrow of I think oh she is I tend to do that don't worry before you leave Jim so can you get us with the draft of both the dating and this tomorrow and then before we leave before nights out we'll try to go over with Ruth's and also the PBL stuff yes so just so you guys know coming on that remember we had the woman who was trying to PBL I asked for that possibility of them providing language for appropriation so I've done that I've asked Jim to stick in the amount of $400,000 so because why not but the idea would be to use it for grants to specifically allow health districts mostly that are having trouble with transcripts you know the design work that we saw some districts were capable of doing with that amount of money they should be able to have somebody go out to the district and help them design the forms if they need them but that's an action piece that we can do without mandate that anybody change the operation with God going so we can take a look at that tomorrow thanks Jim who's that Katie Ballard I'm a parent special ed parent advocate as I represent the coalition for disability rights on the child poverty council before I get started I want to thank you for the opportunity to briefly speak to you today and I just want to show these are my two sons Peyton and Noah they're my two boys I'm going to be speaking a little bit about our experience and I just thought it was really important to share that before I dive in I just want to say when I was overhearing some of the conversation on the break a couple of things stood out to me there was some conversation about the AOE feeling a bit like their feet under water I think they used a swan and I believe you sir also mentioned feeling like you had heard a lot about special ed and had a lot of it I just want to encourage you to imagine how it feels to be a parent navigating that system and also a parent navigating that system when you don't have the resources to access the supports that other folks do it is incredibly draining emotional frustrating and the worst experience that I've ever experienced in a system I have three children one is my daughter's 14 she is neurotypical on the honor roll for her first quarters in high school and loves learning I have two boys a 12 year old in seventh grade and a 6 year old in first grade both of whom are on IEPs I'm going to apologize because this week has been an incredibly challenging week and I think it highlights for me the advocacy work that we've been doing in the house for the literacy bills and I'd like to use that example to explain a little bit why I feel like the academic committee really could help the parents who are seeking support so my two boys my older son has been in special education since kindergarten so that means he's in seventh grade he's had seven years ideally on an IEP that means he's had three evaluations actually four because he did have a records review that got him on it in 2013 his special educator didn't provide three months of services she raised a concern about learning disabilities but never brought it to the team in a meeting with the LEA the special ed director she told me that she thought he had dyslexia on learning disabilities she just adjusted the way she was teaching him but never raised the concern to the team at that point I raised my concern but I was not as knowledgeable and experienced as I am in special ed now because I've had to become an expert they did not at any point ever tell me that there was any further assessments that could have been done to identify learning disabilities I asked now for two years I attended weekly team meetings and I've attended monthly team meetings this week I've had five hours of team meetings to discuss the Stern Center report the Stern Center report came back showing my son had dyslexia dysgraphia dyscalculia and at some point in his academics they took off his learning disabilities he qualified for SLDs and at some point they disappeared so specific learning disabilities and they do have requirements and regulations in our statute currently that I think my biggest concern is that I've seen in the House committee and I've seen very often in my other advocacy that far too often the voice of our associations and the professionals are taken at a higher weight than your constituents and your voters 30 people children families educators attended a public hearing and spoke and almost all of them shared the exact same experience they were not identified they struggled their parents advocated there was data and testing that showed significant deficits for them IEPs individualized education programs are developed individually for a reason but often what I see as a parent for my two boys and as a special ed advocate across the state are IEPs that are developed without appropriate evaluation with inappropriate services and goals and instruction regulations weren't done appropriately we are obligated to evaluate, assess and identify all areas of suspected disability for these children when I go into seventh grade with my son and I have been advocating his entire academic career that he has learning disabilities those learning disabilities are discounted and ignored as an emotionally disturbed child there are years of records that paint him as refusing to do work as non-compliant as aggressive and the truth is for years we presented him with frustration level work that he didn't even have the ability to do when we did the Stern Center report it showed that he had some amazing compensation skills and that right there is the challenge our children develop significant compensation skills which allows these inconsistent or inappropriate assessments that are used in the schools right now to miss the serious deficits and basic skills and it's concerning to me to hear from all of these associations that they don't want the word dyslexia in a bill they don't want the definition in a bill so their reasoning one was because they so I don't totally understand it I'll be honest they didn't want other children who are struggling to read or have learning disabilities to not get captured and they felt like identifying dyslexia was unfair to the other children I would advocate there was a public hearing on the bill and if other families dealing with those issues really they had an opportunity we heard from more than 30 children families, educators you had dozens of written testimony that came in and hundreds of constituents in the state who signed a petition saying that this is this is important and they want people to pay attention to it we understand as advocates as parents as disability advocates that there are hard conversations that come with changing things but if you want to end the generational poverty cycle and the discrimination that's faced by our children with disabilities we have to get into that uncomfortable place and have a conversation about the experience in the building on the ground and not what's on paper in the House Ed committee that Madam Chair and I spoke a lot about was language and she was struggling to noodle all the language because we wanted the word 46 other states 46 other states have bills with the word dyslexia in it and definitions Vermont does not other states are building handbooks dyslexia handbooks they're amazing they're resources for teachers so that they don't have to necessarily be engaged with AOE on the ground but they're still understanding of these terms there are states like Wisconsin recently passed their bill the governor recently signed it they actually had a joint legislative study committee that included members of their house members of the senate and public members in various capacities and that there is nothing in Vermont happening like that we heard from our owns I heard from my own superintendent curriculum director the amazing things being done in my district around literacy that was the most heart-breaking testimony to have to sit through to know that my son has experienced years years that they knew he had a learning disability and they didn't do anything if this can happen to a parent who has become an expert I know my procedural safeguards I know the regs I know the federal I actually just went to a training to become certified to be able to do process hearings for parents because I've had more than families reach out to me across the state just to talk about their experiences and they're so similar and they're so heart-breaking these children are getting so much trauma just because we are not overseeing an incompliance so I'm delighted to have your testimony I know it's hard but I just want to clarify something which has been a point of confusion since we picked up this bill so the original title of this was an act relating to evidence-based structured literacy I just want to clarify you're referring to the one that Senator Ingram introduced for the House one because there's been four but all the way of saying we may take up literacy assuming that the House bill doesn't reach us we won't but it looks good that their bill will get to us but some people interested in literacy have showed up when this comes on the schedule for that for that reason thinking that we're currently talking about it not that we can't remember your testimony you'll see me again when the bill's on don't worry I'll be camped right here Mr. Chair if I may today was supposed to be disability awareness day and it was canceled for all the obvious reasons but Kate Ballard was originally scheduled to testify as part of disability awareness day and that's why it's not necessarily germane to something interesting it's always germane as you heard during the break we've involved ourselves very deeply in special ed and the parents are the best researchers we'll find in Atlanta so my main reason for speaking to some of this is I really want to encourage the committee to one take testimony from parents and advocates and not and be open to what they're saying and when you hear because I'm going to make sure our voices are in here when you hear these things to take the time to look at what we're saying because when the House ed committee did that and they raised a policy that was supposedly on the books come to find out nobody could even answer whether or not it had been sunset if the reports I mean the AOE, the legal council nobody even knew what happened to it so it just as a disability advocate I feel it's very important for me to say we need to really look at how we're identifying and supporting these children and that oversight needs to be really looked at and how we're identifying kids and if we start identifying and the oversight is there for the services from the AOE and we're in the buildings making sure these are happening I believe our scores will go up and I believe you'll see a decrease in cost because you don't have to provide the intensive remediation and the intensive level of supports if you're actually providing quality supports so I just I really want this committee to hear and recognize that there are hundreds of people who want to be engaged who are voters who are engaged and that they need to be in this room just as much as those associations because I sat in the house head committee for hours over weeks and I watched as they they literally advocated against everything and their reason was they didn't want to complicate things they didn't want to be duplicitous but they never actually provided any documentation or data that supported not using the term I look forward to engaging with the committee further and I really appreciate the committee's time and effort to support our children and families absolutely so is there a specific bill that you do recommend and does it have everything you are advocating for or is it just in general this overall issue that you want to spend more time in art is there one of them there like this is the one that we so Representative Kubli wrote a very well written bill that included most of the things that we're advocating for I would encourage the committee to look at Representative Kubli's bill in addition to Senator Ingram's bill and to really and if you have time you can look at some of the other states Wisconsin, Arkansas, Mississippi Maryland they're all doing really this is all something that all the other states seem to be really picking up and addressing I had heard that the House was taking one approach in fact for Bundtinger had an article about that yeah we talked to her about that and then there was a shift away from but you know I have to just put out my own ignorance on the topic right now I have worked with the Stern Center a little bit but we haven't done our homework yet on literacy to know what we did think about just so you're aware more than 60% of our fourth grade children are not able to read at grade level this is truly something that deserves equal and as much attention as any other crisis in the chamber right now I would advocate well thank you so much well I just wanted to acknowledge Katie's is on the council and she's been an invaluable member and Senator Neal is on that thank you I appreciate that is Jim also in that always especially with the I take you in that where do you where what school district do your kids go to so post merger how about people liking things I'll be honest if it weren't for the merger I don't know where my family would be what we experienced in the town was horrendous and while things aren't necessarily ideal or perfect I recognize and appreciate the very amazing things that have come from the merger and the leadership has been engaged I think again this is a breakdown in understanding the regulations of IDEA and accountability I'm very glad that you say that before act 46 I went out to Westford and that's your car call I went out to Westford and they were livid about their tax rates but it was because they were all alone and they had phantom students declining enrollment and that's how I was saying to them we were in the early stages of doing this thing that would create bigger districts so it was good to know because they were good about jumping up board Beth Cobb and the administration has truly been amazing Erin McGuire as an LEA has been amazing I think the challenge comes into a systematic if people are not boots on the ground in our school buildings they don't really seem to know what's going on they just go by what they see in the computer or paper and if parents aren't informed and don't have access to supports or funding resources if this is happening to me and I am as engaged in this form as I am what is happening to all of these other children thank you thank you so committee obviously we have one more afternoon before class Jim's going to come in with three drafts tomorrow my thought is that we'll stay as long as we're working on those drafts if we pass them out in five minutes then we're just going home I'm half suspecting that there will be some announcements tomorrow about what's going to happen next week but I haven't heard anything specific about that but if it takes us longer to work on the builds we don't have the other data defer them to stay tomorrow until we either pass both out or realize that we're not going to pass one of the two rounds so I guess one of the things there's a chance we might be later tomorrow but given our discussions today I don't think so any final there we go these two bills right yeah we've incorporated the miscellaneous bill has to take five or six bills so by that measure we'll have ten bills this session