 Good afternoon. Welcome to Senate Education. It's Tuesday, May 2nd, 149. Mr. Grady, thanks for joining us. We are trying to encourage our federal delegation. We sent them a letter a while back on school construction funds. Now we're trying to get them to encourage the EPA to look at the setting, the standard for PCBs. And we know that the EPA historically we've heard has not been great at, or I'd say the federal government in general has not been great at dealing with chemicals of high concern. I can just speak to my own experience with PFAS and certainly your experience with PFAS and other chemicals. What we're asking our delegation to do is to encourage them to look at that, push the EPA to look at that standard. And I would say it's really what we're trying to get them to talk about is the airborne standard. And I don't know if anybody wants to add anything to that, but... Yeah, because there is no, they don't have an air quality standard, do they, from my understanding? I don't think so. They don't have a mandate. So what they have is for schools. Yeah. And so they have, they're called EGLs, but effectively exposure levels for evaluation. Yeah. And their recommendations. And they have this little flow chart that the schools are supposed to do, you know, if you were built before 1979, your building may contain building materials. And then it gets to this big gray box right here where it said, you might want to do indoor air testing. This is the federal. Yeah. Okay. So it's a recommendation. Yeah. It's not a requirement. And then it goes on and says, if you hit one of the ELEs, then you evaluate what you're going to do. And maybe you put in some mitigation measures. Maybe you do some more testing. And then if you're over 50 parts per million, then you have to take the stuff out of the building. But the 50 parts per million is really focused on the building material with demolition waste or construction waste. And so that's, that's significantly higher. Right. First of all, because it's in the parts per million versus the nanograms per million. Oh, nanograms per million. So yes, I mean, you're, you're, there's a significant gap between this mandatory action and their ELEs. Have you seen these kinds of gaps before? Well, I, I, I mean, was P, remind me PFAS, but they started. Yeah. I mean, PFAS started at a very, very high level, but the new PFAS standard, which has not been fully formalized and will be below Vermont's current standards because of the concern and the prevalence of those chemicals that they're effectively everywhere. How did they get to that? I mean, can you just give us some, so when we started the PFAS conversation, Feds had, you know, really high, not high standards, low standards in terms of PFAS. And now they're below, or they're so much more stringent than Vermont. They're not so much more, more stringent. They will be more stringent, right? The, the history of chemical regulation is, it's, it's long as a little ugly. It, the, the main, the major law governing is called TASCA, the Toxic Substance Control Act. And it's not based on a precautionary system. It's based on a, you effectively get approved if you meet certain minor hurdles. And then there's a, a, an approval for use. And then there was basically, if something happened, then it would be reviewed. So a lot of chemicals got out and were used without a lot of significant, significant review. And the review was usually based on the evaluations and studies made by the manufacturer that they weren't necessarily independent. TASCA was amended about four years ago now to build in a more precautionary component and to have mandates for EPA to review the health and safety of a certain number of chemicals per year. It's going okay, but there are thousands of chemicals. And it's, other chemical is allowed for its use until EPA brings it in for review and makes it determination on its safety and efficacy. What's problematic to an extent about that EPA review, it sounds great. At least they're reviewing, at least they have a mandate to review a certain number of each year. But once a chemical is in review, the states are preempted from regulating. And so states are otherwise can adopt their own regulations of these chemicals. But once it's in that EPA review, it's basically that regulation is kind of forestalled. So it makes it somewhat, I wouldn't say it's a risky act to try to regulate a chemical. It's just that you, potentially your state regulation will not be valid for a period of time while it's under EPA. What's the period of time usually? I'll have to go back and look at my summary. It's called the Frank Wauverg Act. I'll have to go back and look at that. But like a couple of years or like a couple of decades or somewhere between. I think I have to go back. I haven't looked at that. I have a fact sheet on it that I did that I can get. But that federal law interplays with other states that are regulating California. It has what is originally called the Green Chemistry Rules where they've identified chemicals that they believe are dangerous or toxic. And once they've identified it as dangerous or toxic, the manufacturer of a product with it has to label it as California has found that this has been trade. We open up a string of Christmas lights and there's like a little label on it that says the California has found the coating to be potentially harmful. I just bought this. So the states are making efforts that are more precautionary I would say than EPA. But EPA is also making improvements to TASCO. Not necessarily. It's not say like the EU standard where EU, you basically have to prove that it's safe and it goes through years of review. And then something called the RAS standards where you don't get to be used if you're found to not be in compliance. It's a more precautionary approach, but it takes time and it takes money to navigate. So I'm just, I know you can't predict this, but I guess we were to have the administration in right now and say, hey, should we move in this direction? They might say there's some risk because if it does come under review, it could be a long time before the state can then deal with it. So right now you say the current testing program and the action levels that have been set up for that. They're not that significantly different from EPA. I mean, they are lower, but I think Commissioner Levine, he did a side by side of what they are. EPA's screening level is actually lower than Vermont's. It's more protective, but the action level in Vermont is much more protective and then the immediate action level is also much more protective. Vermont's action level depends on the age of the exposed population, the duration of exposure, et cetera. And EPA has some of that too. They have, theirs is kind of based on age, not necessarily duration of exposure. So I guess my question is, is A, that you would want EPA to revise its standards for PCB exposure? Is it just in schools or is it in all indoor air quality? I'm inclined to say indoor air quality and have natural resource and energy look at it also in health and welfare. Because there are other entities that regulate PCB exposure levels like OSHA. So in the workplace, the occupation of OSHA has a time-weighted average airborne concentration of one milligram per cubic meter for PCBs containing 42% chlorine. And then the exposure level for PCBs with 50% chlorine in an average molecular formula is a different standard, but they don't actually spell it out here. And then NIOSH also has standards. NIOSH is the National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health and they have a separate standard for workplace. So there are other standards that are adopted by other entities. NIOSH's standard is a narrative standard. They recommend that any exposure be reduced to the lowest possible exposure level. What does that stand for again, NIOSH? The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. And they're all lower than the EPA. They're more stringent than the EPA. Well, the OSHA standard with the one can be. So I think really what you're asking for is to have a mandatory exposure levels in schools and or air quality in schools that is more protective of school populations than their current recommended levels. And then the question is, do you think that they should mandate testing in schools? At the federal level. Yes, mandate and pay. That's key. I'd like the idea of the pay for sure. Do you mind drafting something to the effect of what you just said, more stringent with financing? Again, we could re-emphasize. We could look at our school construction letter and perhaps re-emphasize the need for funds. Sure. Going forward with just general school construction, but yeah. And then we can take a look at it for the next couple of days. And I can run it by the chairs of health and welfare and natural resources and energy. Very good question. Yeah, please. So in S-25, PFAS, we saw the comfort standard in California. So does that mean that the federal government isn't testing? Has this standard for PFAS? So the federal government came out almost 18 months ago now with what they're calling the PFAS roadmap. And so they identified their major media areas that they regulate in, air, water, waste, toxic substances. And they are proposing standards for PFAS standards for each of those four major categories. So I think recently proposed taking some PFAS off of the approved list under TASCA. And they are proposing water quality standards, drinking water standards, solid waste management standards. But those standards won't become enforceable until they're enacted as rule. And so that's their next step. And they have what they call the roadmap. They have the roadmap to getting there. It also depends on who's in the administration at the time when rulemaking is right. Because from prior transitions, some rules just are just put aside and don't go forward. But I think that rule, or at least some of those rules, because of the pressure from states and the prevalence of PFAS contamination, it's coast to coast, it's everywhere that you can think of it, water, soil, waste. That there will likely be state pressure for them to continue with these components of those rules. And Vermont had its own PFAS bill a few years ago that directed ANR to come up with the drinking water standard, which they have come up with the hazardous waste standard, which they have come up with a water quality standard, which they have not done yet because they wanted it to be consistent, if not with EPA, but regionally with New England states. And that's going to be a tougher one to do, because you don't really know all of the sources of PFAS, just take Bennington, for example. There's probably PFAS leaching from soil into groundwater, groundwater into surface water. And then that's into your surface water, and how do you account for that water quality standard? It's just there, between the groundwater, which is between the surface water, and how do you manage that? I don't know. Is there a chemical that's as ubiquitous as PFAS that you can think of? I mean, it is everywhere, right? There are many chemicals that are as ubiquitous as PFAS. I will say that manufacturers are becoming more aware of what they're using and not just trying to reach an end result, but being precautionary, using some systems that have been enacted, ISO systems, blue sign, things like that, that are management techniques for what you're going to put in your product and how it's going to be ultimately handled. But there's tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of chemicals that are approved for use, and some of them the full effect is not known. That's a sad note to end on. But to Natter's point, when you talk about school construction, we've got to make sure we're building new schools or renovating them. We're not using chemicals that we don't understand yet. That, I think, is one of the industries that was first impacted by chemical management is the construction industry. Because PCBs were in a ton of things. They had to pivot away from those, and they had to move towards materials that were better, but you pivot from one thing into another. There are entities that certify some building materials as being safer than others. They can fully guarantee that they are safe. All right, I will start a letter. Thanks, Mike. Do you want it to be addressed to the federal delegation specifically and CC, say Commissioner Levine, Secretary Moore? I feel nervous. Speaker, yeah. Thanks a lot. Appreciate it. Do you know the contact at EPA with me? Have you talked to anyone at EPA? The only person I've talked to or had any correspondence, Judith Anke, who used to be in this district, but I can reach out to Judith and find out. All my EPA contacts are dead or retiring, so I will have to figure it out. Thanks. All right, I need to run up. We'll pick up at 2.30. Okay, everyone, welcome back to Senate Education Tuesday, May 2nd. From one easy topic to another, 483. Committee discussion. I think I know where most, I think I know where everybody is actually, but want to open it up for conversation and discussion. As you know, we've got 2,200 rule, anti-discrimination piece in, seems to be working effectively. We have the piece having to do with special education in starting July 1. We have the moratorium on schools, which I know people have been asking me a little bit about. And that would mean any and all schools until further notice. And basically, I think what we would do next year is assess, you know, to see how many, and we could talk to the State Board about this, how many districts are in the queue, or how many schools are in the queue, why would they want to start a new school? Some people have mentioned, you know, the possibility of special education schools starting, but the only way to do this, given court cases, et cetera, is one blanket moratorium for the time being on new schools starting. So I think everybody knows where I am on this bill, but this is an opportunity for committee discussion and... Senator Sheen, do you want to start the conversation? Sure. I think, I mean, my... So first, I think the moratorium is the most important piece. It sounds like that's also moving in a different bill appropriations, right? Yeah. So the moratorium is important. Ending the international schools situation is important. The anti-discrimination piece, I like that. The tuition piece regarding the subsidizing of private students using public dollars and how you have to divide that, I think that is one of my concerns. I'm not sure. I feel like there's a lot more understanding that needs to happen there as to the impact that that will have. Yeah. Can you explain that some more? Yeah. Can we look at it in the bill and maybe speak to it? Yeah, sure. This is my one without any notes. I know. I can find my notes. I have one with notes, too, and I... The other way it was written was pretty much a center has been just outlined which is public dollars cannot be used to offset, I think, costs and needs of a private paid student. Oh, okay. I think that is what... Yeah, that it can't be subsidized. And you have a problem with that? Or you don't... I don't quite know how you do it. Flashed out of it and how, what would the impact be on different schools and how they'd have to change things, both for current students and existing students and what towns will have to do to backpedal to reassess what they're paying for tuition because the schools will be changing what they pay or what they're requiring towns to pay for tuition, as far as I understand. I mean, we could ask the president to pretend for funding to look into that this summer and pull together a group of legislators and others. I think it would... And we would have to take some testimony. I don't know if it would... I'm guessing it would require two sets of books for the school but maybe the school kind of does that. I don't know. I'm not sure what it does in the end, but that's... I mean, I know that I had an email from a constituent and I don't know if this is what you're talking about, but I'm saying that the tuition kids going to that school are paying more than the non-tuitioned kids. Does that make sense? Is that what we're talking about? So are you saying that the kids that are coming from a tuition in town are paying more than the others? Right. Can we make it so that it's equal? That's a local... I mean, the school board set the tuition rate. I mean, we can... I always say we can do whatever we want with the legislature, but I mean, it would clearly have to take some testimony on it and look into it or we could even look into it over the summer to try to understand. And Senator Hashim, I'm trying to understand. So you're thinking it might interrupt schools right now if it passes like that? Yeah, that's one piece of it, but I'm actually just trying to find it. I mean, I think one of the things we heard was that... And again, we haven't... People want to see the numbers or take more testimony on this at some point. We know that independent schools don't get construction aid and so they do get... So a lot of that's private funding and private funding we did hear from one witness offsets the tuition costs of some of the funding for other kids. But what I'm trying to get us to is... Well, keep going on that topic if you want. Yeah, I can't quite find it, so... I mean, I know it's in the film. But on another topic, the attestation, that is... Is that immediate and then yearly? I'd like to make sure that's attestation that they're not discriminating in their enrollment process, have it be immediate, and then they have to do it now and then also on a yearly basis. I'm not sure it's yearly or not, but I would think that we should. And I would think it would probably do all schools correctly in this stage. Yeah. Yeah. I think you're right. Here's the topic. Okay. Very marked up one. So I guess the question, another way to think about it is what are people's goals? If you look at the making decision, my response to that, again, similar to what we did last year in 2019, the anti-discrimination policy, the moratorium, which is new, and then we've got the special education language. I don't know what else we could do to make it. Yeah, I don't know either. Other than... Then the other option is 66. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or 283. I mean, that's how this conversation for Scout started was making. Right. So it might turn to speak. Yeah, whenever. We're just having a conversation. Okay. It was... No, we're just chatting. Okay. We're not going to... Well, I mean, I think you all know that I would like to vote on this. I think I don't... I'm new here in the state house, as everyone knows. But I get the sense that this is something that comes up every so often is sort of like this accountability piece with independent schools. So it seems to be a sticking point and across the landscape, the legislative landscape. And to me, this bill is fairly, I mean, relatively innocuous. I think if you look at the title of it, it's an act relating to the accountability and oversight of approved independent schools that are eligible to receive public tuition. And I just don't see where this is going to be that much of a hardship for our independence. I don't think it's going to cause any of them to close. I don't think it's catastrophic. And I think at the same time, it does achieve some accountability and oversight that, for me, because you guys know I use the word equity a lot, it seems to add to sort of a more equitable landscape in terms of what our statewide education system looks like. So I would love to vote on it. I really applaud the folks who work on this. I think it was like a nice balance between accountability and oversight, but not being too stringent or limiting to independent schools. So, I mean, I wish someone could be a little bit more clear on what they don't like about this or what they think is really horrible about this, because no one's really been able to express that. So I mean, I can say just from where I'm sitting, and I'd be interesting to talk to the prior chair, I feel like, in a way, there has been this interest kind of from some folks to deal with this kind of stuff, but I don't know still what the problem is. The problem for me is making. Like we said last week, I would much rather be talking about all the things that are happening right now with kids, honestly, than this. So let's take the interview process, for example. We heard that there's an interview process for CTE programmers, and we also heard that not all public schools take kids. They can expel kids, you get expelled, you can't go to the next school. I mean, there are all sorts of things out there. So it's not quite black and white for me. Let's say the interview process. I also was compelled by the woman whose kid, you know, there are situations, and I've talked about this a lot. I'm happy to keep talking about it though. Honestly, it's just not a fit for the kid. That's why we have so many special education schools. They're therapeutic schools in the state. And I do worry about, and I know you do too, teen suicide and LGBTQ kids, what's the right spot for the kid? We heard about the family that had to... So that interview process, if you're going to go to the campus, you're going to get a sense or a feel of what that's like. I don't see that as an accountability kind of thing. Accountability to me is, I mean, if kids are leaving, if we had underparencing, their kids weren't being educated or experiencing those things, what I think this is, honestly, is kind of a... Again, for me, making is the most important thing. And I think that has been accomplished. When I think of my goals, that's, I believe, we have done a solid job, and then we would reassess next year to see whether or not, based on 2200 rule, special ed, and the moratorium where things are at. But I came to this with, and we did last year, making. Right. So I, again, I'll just weigh in. I think there will always, always be individual cases of a kid who's not happy somewhere. Totally. That will always be the case. I'm looking at it as a system that we need to invest in, that we need to support, and that we need to hold accountable. So if there are kids who are failing in a system, then the AOE and whoever else, whatever other governing body we have, needs to step in and fix the problem. Will it be fixed for everybody? Probably not. But I'm looking for what is the best system that will benefit the most kids. And I'm particularly interested in, obviously, our most vulnerable. And by that, I mean, you're right. LGBTQ kids, kids from the global majority, kids living in poverty. We have to build a super strong system to, as you've heard me say, right, lift them out of poverty. It's always, education was always the great equalizer. And that's kind of what we need to be focused on as far as I'm concerned. I agree with you. I want to work on other stuff. Yeah. That's why to, and I was hoping you might want to testify. But I would, you know, we're going to be, it sounds like if we don't vote on this and if we can't move it, then we will be, again, next year dealing with this. Well, it depends on really what the goals everybody's goal really is. Again, for me, just speaking for myself, my goal coming was make it. And how do we deal with make it? I would much rather deal with it pieces that we have, move forward and work, and might we tweak something? Might we find something over the summer that we would need to tweak in terms of accountability? I don't know how interviews get to accountability. I just don't. I mean, not requiring interviews, not, you know, that kind of thing doesn't, you know, Senator Hashim's question about the funding. Okay. Maybe pull that kind of thing apart. But I'm not sure how we, what's going to make, it depends on people's goals and objectives. As much as an interview can be used by a student to choose a school, it seems like it could be used by a school to choose a student. And we, I have said, you've heard testimony, public schools take basically everybody, right? You're sure you can make exceptions, but it's basically they take everybody. And if we've got public dollars going to these quote unquote independent schools, they should have to do the same. That is an equitable landscape. But then do we shut off the CTE program that they turned away 40% of kids last year? No, CTE is under a different governing model. It's under a different governing structure. But if you want to shut the CTE schools down, then yes. No, I mean, of course I don't. I want to shut any of them down. And I think what we learned was exactly that the CTE, they benefit from that. And, you know, they really do. They're like, hey, somebody had a disciplinary issue. We're not going to take them. We're at somebody at this. And so they turn people away. Can't say that it's right for them and it's not okay for others in my opinion. Well, if that's the line that we have to draw, then, you know, if that's what you're suggesting. I'm not. I'm thinking we allow people to continue and let the CTE program continue as it's doing it. Well, I would ask for a vote. I would ask for a vote. Go on page seven. Yeah. So page seven is where a few different points that I brought up are located. The idea of having student, publicly-tuitioned student rates be the same or lower in the tuition rate for private payers and having the tuition rate be published on the school's website, that's at the top of the page. And also I'm using the as-pass by the house version. Is that? Yes, that's what I've got. Yes, I bet that is. Yeah, yeah. I'm just trying to find... Page seven of 24. So wait, what is your issue with that? Senator? I don't have an issue with that. I think it makes sense. Oh, okay. Okay. Page seven. Then the attestation is on section 10 or starts on line seven through 11. School attests on or before August 1 each year in compliance with the requirements of subdivision nine, and I think subdivision nine is the anti-discrimination piece. So I'm sorry. Do you mind just going back to page seven? Yes. Just so I'm following. So tell me a little bit. This is page seven. Subsection... Ten. Ten. Okay. School attests. I want to be for... It's starting at the top, is it? No. Section 10, the school attests on or before August 1 each year to compliance with the requirements. That's true. I'm answering. And subdivision nine is the anti-discrimination piece, right? I'm not ceiling, but I don't... I'm not sure. And again, we're just having committee discussion. I'm trying to get a sense of where people generally are. And then the... So the attestation is required to remember by 2,200 rules. Okay. Yeah. So we're just repeating. That is required by 2,200 rules on non-discrimination. And there's an enforcement process, I believe, in the 2,200. I mean, the enforcement process isn't... It's a habit. We could find out. Yeah. Yeah. It's in the 2,200, so we can ask Beth. Because I thought there were some schools that didn't attest or they refused to. Well, the 2,200 rule is pretty... I mean, it's just been an effect. I have to check with Beth. We did lose... Remember, a bunch of schools decided not to go forward because they weren't comfortable with the anti-discrimination policy. So those schools won't get public funding. Yeah. So that's what... So in my opinion, it's working. Yeah. I feel like that accomplishes our underlying goal of not putting public funds towards schools that discriminate regardless of how they're affiliated. The piece that I did have some confusion slash concerns about was at the bottom of page 7, which is that's where the division of tuition is described. Right. That's the one I'm not quite sure is ready for primetime. I don't know if it... Right. Yeah. We can figure out a way to sort of jump into that. Back to the attestation, it is. So a bunch of schools decided not to sign it and that's why they're sort of not going to be approved by the State Board. We can always have Jen Samuelson in to confirm that. On the back, page 8, is there any idea why we don't want to amplify the right of action if what I believe is the anti-discrimination piece is not complied with? No private right of action is created by this subdivision against an improvement. I also need to confirm that subdivision 9 is actually the anti-discrimination piece. State Board is authorized to use its powers. We can ask Beth. Yeah, I vaguely remember. I don't have my good side-by-side. So I was just expecting just to get a sense of where everybody was. What page are you on? Page 8 at the top. I believe, yeah. So it looks like section 9, the subdivision 9 is the piece that covers the admissions process, the policies that comply with the Public Commodations Act, the Fair Employment Practices, the tuition rate, the application fees, and the non-discrimination is located at the very end in subsection I. So is there a problem with that? Have we got any investments that are not doing those things? It seems like it. Well, it seems like it. I think this is a solution looking for a problem. Yeah. I really don't. Is it functioning right now? I think the... I really think the need for this to be not over. Well, we're just having committee discussion today. David's not here. I want to be respectful to Senator Weeks, too. But I wanted to get a sense of where people are on this. And if I were to summarize, correct me if I'm wrong, I think there's one person that would want and ready to vote on the full enchilada. Correct. Okay. One who might have some concerns about sections, certain sections. Yeah. And then the two of us who are happy with, at least at this point, with what we have done already and want to see that wait and see what happens next year to see how the 2200 Act 1783 and the moratorium take effect. So the moratorium that is being included elsewhere? Yeah. That includes international schools? No, that includes just... That's no new schools can start whatsoever. Can we somehow incorporate no international schools on public dollars on that moratorium? No, that's not... That's a different... That's not a moratorium. That's not sending public dollars out of this. I know what you're trying to get at. I know it's not a moratorium per se. Right, right. Yeah. In the umbrella of education generally, is it? Yeah. If I were to summarize, correct me if I'm wrong, your thinking it's on the international students. Yeah. I do think we need a little... We need more information if we were down the road to say no more dollars out of state, the 25 mile thing, I think need some real looking at. I mean, I'd still like to know how they got there. What if the ideal school is 30 miles or whatever? But yeah, let me talk with probes on the international piece. I mean, are you okay with that? Are Vermont tax dollars going to Switzerland? No. What about a prep school in Massachusetts? Well, I think we need to look at the whole state and pull the schools out if there's a school that's in Quebec. You know, rather than... It's 25 miles away rather than busing kids 50 miles. You know, like somebody... We had a testimony that said if you hold all the independent schools out, there'd be some powerful gaps. Well, sure, especially in rural Vermont and special education areas. I think there could be... I mean, I don't want to bet for this, but I think there could be legal issues for a state government picking and choosing international policies. Interesting. I think it's something that... I think it would have to be all or nothing internationally. Yeah. Are you okay with a family that moves to Landgrove and has four kids, and all four kids go to Deerfield Academy in New Hampshire and all of our Vermont tax dollars go to Deerfield? Are you okay with that? I don't know where Deerfield is. It's a fancy private school. What's the distance? I mean, if there's a closer school... 40, 50 miles? Maybe. I'm not really. Okay. Are you? I mean, I think the... I don't think it... The therapeutic schools, I understand that. There are circumstances where it makes sense that there's a very specialized school for somebody with needs that can't be met even anywhere in New England. I think that could be an exception. Go wherever you need to go. Yeah, I agree. But sending, going to Landgrove, what's the time you said? And then using that to send your kids to a super fancy prep school that's beyond our borders, well beyond our borders, I don't think that makes sense. So maybe we do 50 miles. My thing is the 25 miles, I don't know. It seems to me like I'd rather dig into that a little bit more and just try to understand. I think digging into it can make sense, but... Yeah, I don't know. I'd like to sort of get a sense also of I mean, are there four kids going to Dearfoot right now? I just like to get a sense. I use the family that I know as an example. That's why I chose that example. Senator Weeks did bring up a point. I think he mentioned a school that was 28 miles out. He knows people are going to. Yeah. But then you have to draw a line that's slightly mild. Yeah. Except, and I agree with you, if it's a special needs school, and I remember we kept this in 219, we said wherever you need to go, so your child gets the best education they possibly can. And I don't know if there are many kids outside of New England, but I think there was a kid in the Midwest at one point for severe disability. So that helps me to understand where people are and anything else. What were you describing regarding the interview process? Is there something you want to change there? Well, so the interview process thing for me... Is that located? Yeah, so I like the kids. I mean, getting rid of... I guess somebody would have to make the case for me why a kid shouldn't just have experience in interview, campus tour, get a feel for the place, see if it's a good fit, that kind of thing. I don't know where it is. That was my... That might be in subdivision nine. Let's see. Where it says, school shall not use an admissions process. Right. Public relations students and academic entrants and financial institutions are considerations of ability to pay... Page 15. What page? I don't know. I'm looking at my side by side. Yeah, I mean, I... The CTE, I thought was a great example. I mean, she doesn't take everybody. She said she turns like 30 or 40 kids away. I don't think if we're going to really treat everybody the same, I think let people have that experience. Well, those are different circumstances. But also, I have to wonder... You're using a band song. Oh, sure. You're welding with... I mean, there's a reasonable judgement to do things in CTE. Right, and I don't think you should be allowed. Absolutely. I think she should continue to be allowed in interview. The other thing... I have a note here that says that... And it's next to... It's in that subdivision line. It says that public schools rely on a transcript to determine placement. And that's just my scribblings. But, I mean, if that's the case, then, is that something that we should also have for private schools? Because if public schools are relying on a tran... I want to confirm it, maybe I misunderstood something, but unless they determine placement, they will still take the kid regardless of what's on their transcripts. I mean, honestly, when I hear this conversation, I'll be honest, and I know we're not on the same page on this. Transcripts, placement, interviews. I'd be rather be talking about bigger things. I mean, I'm not sure in terms of accountability. Accountability is no discrimination. Make sure you're giving the academics that the state and federal government require in terms of special education. That's just me. I mean, people can make... Keep making the case for this. I just... I don't see it. I mean, I just... If somebody said, oh, you've got to make sure all the schools are doing X, Y, and Z, and it made sense because we have 30 parents in here that said my kid's not being educated, I'm not sure how this improves public education or independent education. I just don't see how it improves. Like, it really makes a difference in terms of... I think the point regarding the interviews is the fact that a school, an independent school, can say, yeah, we attest that we're not going to be discriminatory, but you are going to have to go through this interview, and in the back of the admissions officer's mind, they can say, yeah, we're not going to let this kid in for whatever reasons, but, of course, on the record, they can say, yeah, we just don't think you're a good fit for, you know, maybe... I don't know. The more nefarious reasons, and I feel like the nefarious reasons are what we're trying to get at. So I think we're still at the same spot, full steam ahead, some questions to people who are saying, okay, right now, those three things in place, let's assess next year. I don't see how this bill is harmful to our independent schools. Can someone point that out? Can someone show me the harm that this will do to independent schools? We generally try to do things that improve the lives of schools and kids. We don't try to do things, think about them in a harmful way. How does it advance the world? So one way it advances the world is by trying to create a more equitable landscape and building capacity in our public schools. So, well, if we are allowing some schools to discriminate based on whatever and others not to, that's number one. Number two, if we have some schools that have endowments of $400 million and land holdings in, you know, $300 million and pay their superintendent $450,000 a year while public superintendent is making $150,000. That's information that we should all be privy to. So that accountability piece, which is not even in here. I understand that. But that is the kind of thing that ultimately would level the playing field a little bit more. So building capacity in our public schools is what this is about because our public schools serve the most amount of kids in the state and all kids, regardless of their ability, their special education needs, et cetera, et cetera. So, and that's also remember what Act 173 is about to do in all of our independence. And we do suspect there is going to be, as we've heard a little bit, some independence that are going to close because they're just not going to get a special education. They're not going to get the public funds. Yeah, and I completely agree most of our kids are in public schools and I would love to be having a conversation, frankly, about our public schools. I would love that. This seems to me like kind of interviews and this and that and okay, but I don't see it building capacity. Yeah, I mean. Yeah, there are some areas. Remember, there are no public schools. We know that. We know that they're in public schools. Yes, you're right. The way our landscape is going. You're right. We have these independent schools, but again, I I, if it's, you know, if it's for optics, if it's for creating a more equitable landscape in the state of Vermont, I don't see how we cannot be in favor of that. It just doesn't make sense to me. And for me, at least that's why the anti-discrimination piece and the special ed piece are so important. Those are and then the moratorium. I mean, and maybe you would disagree if we didn't have those in already moving forward, I would think that that would be the center part of this bill. Those were the center parts of it, Lesh. I mean, yeah, you've made your... No, we've all made our... Right, everyone's made their cases. We're really disappointed if we at the very least cannot have some kind of restriction on where Vermont taxpayer dollars are going. That seems like a real basic to me. It seems like we... It seems like there's a general somewhat of a consensus that we don't want to send taxpayer dollars overseas. I don't know. I think Senator Weeks also had that concern. He was... I think he's not here. I don't want to fully speak for him, but he had a very good point. Let's find out who the kids are, what the situation is. We don't bring things generally to the floor that say, hey, we're going to stop. Let's understand it. I think that was his only piece. I remember correctly there was I think it was a dozen or so kids that were overseas or maybe it was nine. It was a really small number. That's true, but I could be wrong. So, I think I'm pretty sure there's a grandfather clause in here, so it's not as if some kid in Switzerland is suddenly going to be kicked out of a school with nowhere to go. I don't want to send our state dollars out of the state. So, I know you guys have this... you don't like the 25 mile rule. I don't want to send money out of state, period. Build capacity in our state with our public dollars. I didn't say I don't like the 25 mile rule. I just want to understand. I mean, you're willing to draw a line in the sand on the moratorium. You're saying no more new schools. Right. So, there's a line drawn there. Why can't we draw a line that says no more state money leaving the state? And I think it goes to what Senator Weeks had previously said about the school that's 28 miles out. That's drawing a line in the sand. Right. So, where do we want to ultimately draw that line? Do we want to draw it at 30? Or do we want to draw it at 5? You know, why 25? As opposed to 50. I mean, it takes an hour to drive 50 miles. I don't know. It's just questions to ask about why we're picking that number. I think there should be a reason as to why we're landing on a number that will change a number of families plans for where they're sending their kids to school. I just don't think it should be arbitrary. But again, you can grandfather it in. I mean, I grew up in a district that had kids bussed in from an hour away. I mean, Allberg, Isle-O-Mott, North Hero, South Hero, Grand Isle, which they were always sent to South Burlington, Burlington, as a school chester. I mean, that's it's been. Now, Isle-O-Mott kids are very close to the Canadian border. Right. But a bus paid for and they're, you know, they took the bus to these schools. I mean, it just, it can be done. Yeah, I don't disagree with it. Yeah, I mean done. Yeah, sure it can be done. Yes. Procedurally, if we don't like this bill, we'd have to amend it, right? Yeah, I mean, it's, you know, it's, yeah, anytime you don't like a bill, you generally amend it. That's why we're having this sort of committee discussion to see what folks are having. Yeah. Anything else? This is helpful. I appreciate it. I know it's hard. I know it's... We do have a grand bothering clause in here. Yeah, I believe we do. Yeah, we can check. Because I mean, it's hard again, I would much rather, and I think everybody would be talking about COVID, mental health, teacher salaries, all these kinds of things. And frankly, I think the people that are leading this charge should be also working on those things. Honestly, I think if this is what the public education advocates, the biggest, most important bill for them, this, given all the issues we have in this state, yeah, I'm disappointed. I'm frankly, really disappointed. Well, I think... That's me. I think... I think one of the underlying very underlying issues is the fact that with every kid that leaves a public school that's less money that's going to the public school, so there's less resources to do the things like raising teacher salaries or financing programs that are helpful for kids with special needs or doing the things that a public school wants to do. So I think that is the underlying issue that is slowly deteriorating public schools. That's what I think is at the heart of it. I mean, for me, the heart of this has been, at least again for me, is how do we deal with Macon? I think there are a range of schools out there, some public schools that are doing incredible work, even after COVID. And then we've got some schools that also need our help and our assistance, and that's where I personally would rather focus, but... So the number of independent schools that are doing nice things are great things for their communities and for kids that are game changers. Game changers. I think of the Compass School, honestly. That's a spot where kids need to go and I would say, you know, you look at everybody wants to paint the brush of all these kids that go to independent schools or rich kids. St. Johnsbury, Linden, and even Manchester, there are free and lunch levels. But there's nothing in this bill that would change that. No, no, no. I'm just talking about, we're on the topic of what independent schools are offering to the community and things like that. Anything else? Well, no, I'm just getting back to the earlier comment. I think it's, I don't think it's fair to say that advocates haven't been focused on a number of issues around our schools. One thing that they've been advocating for is a pause on the PCV testing, which is another added stress on the system, particularly the private system. But again, I know that nothing's going to happen with that either, but it's not fair to say that this is the only thing that they've been advocating for, because that's not true. I mean, frankly, I would push back on them and say the PCV testing, the question is, are you doing something that administrators want? Are you doing something that's good for kids? And I like to keep focused over and over again. And I believe PCV testing is good for kids. I think this landscape of schools that we have are good for kids. I even think the hazing and harassment conversation we had, if we lowered that standard, that's good for kids. Every one of those issues the public schools folks say, no, no, no. I believe they're good for kids. They're saying they're not good for kids. That's disconcerting to me. It really is. It's about how is the testing good for kids? Just explain that to me. For me, knowledge is power. And if you're in a school, all of a sudden that gets tested, and that is so high, you know that something has to be done to that classroom. But if you don't have, if your district doesn't have the resources to pay for it, and the state isn't willing to pay for it, then what do you do? We have the funds set aside, as you know, in 486 that actually put money there and are released to use those funds. Those funds, nothing is in those funds. The 16 million that we gave Burlington, there's, I don't know how many millions of dollars are left, but those are the dollars that are going to be used for some of these schools. That's not going to pay for a complete renovation. That does not mean raising the school, but it does mean making certain that a child or a pregnant teacher, or somebody who's through a developmental phase in their lives, knows that it's there, and we can deal with it. That's how I think it's really good for kids. And procedurally, when you have this, what we just found out, you find that they're PCBs, so you go in and you try to mitigate, and that makes the situation worse. Well, let me hear from them, as we are, you know, this is, that's a one, you know, we should listen, we should hear what they have to say. I personally don't see why stopping makes sense, even with that one situation. I think, you know, we've also, back to equity, we have tested what, 20% of our schools? There are a lot of schools that want to get tested. Those are state funds. Why would we shut them off at this point? I get it. It's a hard thing that's happening out there. No question about it. And we'll hear more from that chapter. On the, yeah. So those are the three things for me that I think are kids-centric, in my opinion. Crassing and bullying. This and the PCB. And I have been disappointed. I really have been. I would much rather every day come in here and talk about mental health issues in school. All sorts of different things. But we can agree to disagree. Anything else? You are going to request to get off of the committee. Look at me. I'm here for the long time. All right. Good. Okay. I'm going to go to chairs in a little bit. I think we're adjourned for the day.