 All right, so I guess we're starting with the Universal Afterschool Program, please. Okay, so. Yes, sir. For the record, we're at Jim Daymore's console. We're going through draft 5.1 after the Afterschool Program bill. The changes from last time are highlighted in yellow, and there's just a few of them. So first is on page two. The task force on line seven has 15 members down from 14. Page three, the additional member is the Executive Director of the Mount Afterschool Inc. for this May. And then on page four, that date got fixed. And then lastly, on page five, the appropriations have been changed to reflect the current membership. There was a conversation last time about whether we have the appropriations here, or whether to maybe not have the appropriations here, but fund it through the agency of the administration. It's an overall appropriation, and I'm sure Bruce is going to speak to the administration or maybe, I don't know if she'll approve it, haven't her back done that yet, so I'm not sure which way to go. So currently, it's the same way it was before, which is in preparation in this bill. Jim, on the amount of 72 last draft was 84, that was decreased. Because we've got every kind of the people, and I think only six people should qualify, eight people should qualify. Only eight. Two members of the assembly qualify for sure, and then you have six members who wouldn't otherwise be paid. I don't believe, and those six members are. So we're going to page three. We've got 10, 11, well, hold on. Nine, 10, 11. Nine, the chair's really okay, I think, but a rep of Homestay program, this one, a rep from my board school, this two, and then I have three here, that's five. I think I did include this chair, I was a long time, so it was a short. But any appropriation that's been used would be referred back to, referred back. So being on the high and the semper, it would be okay. I think we should make them do it out of their own budget for two reasons. One, I think that was the administration's asking for this, and so they've already said they want to do it, so they should pay for it out of their own budget. And two, because there was already a study done in 2015 that this would essentially be replicating, so why pay for it twice? But we're going to pay for it twice annually because if you appropriate here in this bill, will you appropriate jump on money to the agency? I know, but if we put it like this, then the general assembly has to come up with the money. We make them do it out of their own existing base budget, then they have to come up with the money. And this is an administration proposal. I don't know that funding was included in the budget for it, so I think it should be out of their base budget. I feel like that's the committee demo hall's job to figure it out. Well, we should hear from Samford, and how his conversations will, I suppose, are. So yeah, so we can, and we're supposed to vote on it, but we should vote for him for that as well, too, so. Any other questions that are on the straight board? Okay, thank you. Why don't we move on now to the power to reach the state board? Okay, so you should have a handout, which looks like this document here. So this. Like what? Sorry, it's on, oh, here it is, okay. So this is the division of the state board rulemaking practices between the state board and we asked the pros and cons of what we can do today. So state board rulemaking authority, it's listed first, and we'll read them, but they're here. I would note the serious 5,000 is the one that's controversial. That's one about licensing and how to educate us. I'm back to that momentarily. So, oh, sorry, I repeated my captioning, too. So the second group here is state board rulemaking, all right, it's AOV rulemaking authority. So we have not gone through this list before, so let's go through this list. So what was about the, they haven't even changed the, what to say, agency, but the agency. We also went to school day in the year, my GD drives education, use of restraint in institutions, schools, pupils, school buildings and sites, school bus, island, rules for billers for contracts, construction management, relationship with public other agencies, institutions, school lunch programs, child and adult care, food program, public beds, medical care for people, full-time equivalent enrollment of pupils, allowable and extra-ordinary education expenditures, science, well-calculation, and recording students from English and foreign language, the coordination of services to children and adolescents with severe emotional disturbance. So that's the division as proposed by Chair Carroll of the CA Board. Welcome back to the service 5,000th year. On the next page, you'll see, this is the first page of the service 5,000 rules. And at the top, it's Montsource for Education. It's this issue under the Montsource for Education. However, as I said that, go to the next page, this is called statutory authority, which all of this references are not to see abortion, all to the 1691, et cetera. These are all references to the board that oversees the social educators, who talked about yesterday, that's the standards board. So I don't know why this is confusing, because it actually makes sense to me why you have rules issued by the same board when you don't have authority, and why they're issued by the service board with set of authority, I don't know. But I... Wait, so who does this have? This is not AOE's authority, this would be the state licensing, the thing we talked about yesterday. The licensing board, the standards board for. Stand, okay. So it was a different board, it's an independent board that is appointed by the governor, it's a separate board. So I'm not sure why it's being done right, it's being done currently, probably we need to hear from the board, the board on that. For the purposes of the bill though, I don't think it should be under the state board's responsibilities, because it's actually statutory to be assigned to the standards board. So I think there's a lot of reasons to be amended in that respect. So I'm just a little confused about these lists. So the top list is what this state board of registration does now? State board of registration is everything now, everything. Oh absolutely, everything here. All the rules. This is a proposed division between the state board and the first list, and it's about my type of AOE, the central one. Okay, let's just get AOE right now. Yeah, I mean it seems to me that we should probably get some testimony from somebody who's on the state licensing standards board and figure that out, because it doesn't make sense. The other area that seems a little strange to me, looking at the two lists, thank you for doing this, it's really helpful. Thank you for asking for it Debbie. Is that special education is under the state board. And most other, I guess in pre-K is too, but most other sort of, and is this a comprehensive list? There are not other things that they make rules about? What about, oh the sliding scale, where is school finance? I mean I guess they have the census-based funding up here, special education finance, but there's not. There are a lot of rules to think under, well maybe it's under the tax code, but it's not an answer, it's more of a rulemaking about school funding. Well anyway, I guess I would like to hear more about why the board, you know, what John Carroll said was this was the stuff they were most invested in and I'm not sure why special education would be under their purview and not, I mean some of this stuff makes sense, school district organization and the private school stuff and alternative structures, to the extent that's an even thing anymore. And the quality standards, but anyway, I don't know. Well I got the hot investment issue, where pre-K and special ed, they want to tackle. Yeah, and maybe, I mean if they're both okay with that maybe that makes sense, but we haven't heard from the secretary yet. Yeah, I'm really interested in this one. Hello, sorry, ladies, this is a weird chapter, the power of education, this is a standard board for special educators, but then it's truly a standard board for special ed. So then should other boards have more than that? Other sort of standard boards? Should I do a, I can't say what they are. Yeah. We were just reminding them. This is the only restriction we have over here is that it's separate. Yeah. Oh, those standards? Yeah. Yeah, so I'm not sure why that's here. It's the title of their circle with that. Yeah, it does. Okay, okay. So starting here and then moving on into the. Yeah, I was just explaining that this is the list as proposed to be divided up. And the next page though is the mystery of why the rules for preparation of educational professionals is under the state board. And the authority to issue those rules is not under the state board, it's under the standards board. So I don't know why it's done the way that it's being done today. So that's an open question. Yeah, we can, so my idea on this, I think it was a great idea to do it side by side. My thinking was we could try to have John Carroll and Secretary French for desing me in the room in real time and have them make their arguments. Yeah. Because otherwise we're going to wind up, you know, going back and forth and back and forth between them. Right. Better if they just, if possible, work some of it out. And is there a description of what each series means in more detail to you? Because like education quality standards would basically, would that include like a proficiency-based type of situation on how the board would do what they did? Yes. So why are we keeping that authority with them? The whole catalyst for this move is they went into that space. That's a good question. So you had a board pre-Filsconn because the governor has sort of methodically remade the board in certain ways. And so they were, I would say they were an outlier, the board as it existed under Stephen Morris and Bill Laughness as co-chairs. They had a really expansive idea of what the board was supposed to be doing. Stephen Morris was about to retire from the board. So he didn't see the rightist maybe on his part. But Bill Laughness, I think, just has a very expansive idea of the board's powers. Right. But the board calendar, John, is much different. So the question would be do you strip them of that? I mean, I would because John's not going to be chair forever. True. On the other hand, it doesn't remove the problem which you put it into AOE, but also activist secretary. That's true. And, in fact, The least thing you'd have administration who's responsible for it? Yes. But I mean, the proficiency-based learning thing was partially secretary Holcomb working with the state board. So it wasn't like AOE was, you know, they were an active partner in that proficiency-based learning. So, but it's a good thing to flag. So what I would suggest everybody do is, on this side-by-side, make notes for yourself. I'll have Jeannie. I think it was next week that Secretary French was going to come in and speak to this. Yeah, the Thursday is when you're told that. Yeah. Yeah. So if possible, I'll talk to John Carroll and see if he would be up for that and see if the secretary's up for that. Some people don't like, you know... I hope you thought that. Yeah. But we did it with... What did we do with where we had the two sides? You did it with the contract negotiation thing. There was that. But we did it for... Oh, no. No, it was the... We did do it with speech platforms. Yeah. Universal China accounts. Oh, right, right. Remember, we had Secretary French and then the three business managers. And that was excellent. Yeah. And it prevented him from saying, well, nobody feels it this way because then they just in real time were speaking to each other. Can we also have the Webbers as they presented it from the standards board and because they're supposedly in charge of these regulations? So let's think of that as like... And my question too is, Jim, even in an email, this is a pretty good description of series 5,000. Do we get more than just a name definition from these so that we can look into what they mean? Sure. I think in the first case, these are rules that go on for... Or maybe just a sense of description. Of each one, just so that way. Is that possible? Or like the scale. If I can... Yeah, I think... If it's possible to... Yeah. Yeah. I'm trying to figure out how to capture. Yeah. Yeah. In the first instance. It may be... I'm not sure how much collaboration has already gone on between the board and AOE. It may be that they've already agreed to this duty split. If they have, I think it still makes sense to bring the standards forward and ask them to sort of cover all the bases. But basically, we're just looking to make sure that they're okay with this split and that we think it makes sense. But, you know, I don't see anything on here that strikes me as out of line crazy. So if the secretary's willing to have all of these efficiently on his plate, the board's willing to give up all of them. I mean, the board, I don't think it's acquiring it new. They're not taking anything from it. No. Okay. Okay. So, let me... So I think if we skipped over... Well, we actually looked at it, but we didn't vote on it. Thank you. Why don't we go back to that one before we start a walk, a real walk through the other? So the only thing I wanted to have... The big thing is that one thing about inflation is the appropriation. Oh, shoot. I never asked. I was going to ask. I'm sorry. What are we... Why don't we do this? What if we... If you're all right, just go with the language as we're... When the bill goes into appropriation, I'm going to have to go and talk about that today. I can ask them about that today. What they think about it. Making them need it. Yes. Yes. Yeah. It's been over a while. The view was expressed that we... that since the governor is asking for this, that they should be... Nice. It was down the hall. Great. So one way to resolve it is keep the language as is. Save the question to be asked when... Check it. Okay. So I want to pick up this thing. Watch your head. Amy, I'm just remembering that you just sent me... She's dying in the corner. Did you see water? Okay. Thank you. You sent the language to that report that we said we would put in as something that they have to look at. I think we already put it in here. Did it go in? Yeah. I was considering the report. It's out of the closet. Oh, yeah. I see. This is a... It was a different one? Not for school for all grants. It's not actually... It's a mall. Should I explain it? Please. Just to introduce yourself. For the record, Amy Schollenberger, I represent Vermont After School. And when I had talked to Senator Baruth about... There is a link on your website. I forget what it is. It came from Senator Ingram. There's a... In 2018, legislative year 2018, fiscal year 2019, there was a chunk of one-time money that was set aside, that was opioid and tobacco money, that was directed to the Secretary of Human Services to figure out what to do with it. And at the time of Secretary Govay, he was told to do prevention, intervention, and treatment with that money. And he recommended, and it was accepted, that $600,000 of that, I think it was $930 total, would be put into a grant program, basically designed to do what the governor is proposing, to get more after school programs available in communities across the state. And so that money was directed to go to DCF, and they did do a grant program, and the money has been allocated. And so, I just let Senator Baruth know that, and he thought it might be worth the task force taking a look at how that program went, and not that you'd have to do it that way, but just that it already happened. Yeah. And Dr. Levine is now named as somebody who's going to be on this task force. So it would be, I think it would be right of his attitude. Yeah, so Bishop is aware of that. So, my thought was that we could, in the powers and duties section, we could add a number where we say the task force will review... It was called the after school for all grant program. Yep. We'll review the status and performance of the after school for all program, run by DCF. Got that, Jim? Mm-hmm. Do we need to put the commissioner with the Department of Health? You were saying... Oh, Secretary of Human Services. But that might be the disdain, right? It could be the disdain, yes. I think that's their intention is to have Dr. Levine or his deputy at what does it mean? That was Kendall's. In Kendall's email, that's what she suggested. Oh, okay. But we can just think of like that? Yeah, I think so. And that allows it to be him. So, Jim, you want to take us through the changes or the few changes? We're going to do that for Dr. Levine. We're going to do it again in 60 seconds. So we've got phase two. There are 15 members now. Page nine, seven. Page 14. Page three. The new member is a lot nine. The executive director of Vermont Hunter School, Inc. or just me. And then, page four, the date was corrected in 2015 for that report. And then, on page five, the appropriation has been updated. Any questions or discussions about this draft with the understanding that Jim would take that last addition? Okay, then I would entertain a motion. It's no move, it's under a version. Final discussion, who? Well, but we... We're going to end that final language. Do you want to wait to see that? I can. If you want me to take me 10 minutes, we'll ask you to go and do it. Yeah. Why don't you go ahead and do that and we'll just be at ease. While we wait for Jean to come back with those, let's take a quick look at the stakeholder deal. So we walked you before the first part of this bill. Do you want me to go from there and ask to begin? Actually, last time we went to... Why don't you pick up on page four? Page four? Okay. Well, page four is kind of the middle part of the support caused into this. Okay. They have all the documents. Okay, one now. And that's enough? So now we're waiting for the equal. You have a good time. All right. We can share. We'll be environmentally conscious. Sounds good. I think we're already far. All right. So we work over to that 6.2. You're going to go on half-school programs and you're on page four. And there's new subdivision four. I'll look on. Which reads, the task force shall review the status and result of the after-school for all grant programs administered by the Department of Children and Families. Excellent. It's broadcast together. Okay, thank you. So... That better be monthly. They must. I'm still on the tape. So... I changed another part of my motion. Any discussion of draft 6.2 prior to that? Okay. Not seeing any. Senator Hardy. Aye. Senator Ingram. Yes. Senator McNeil. Aye. Senator Perchle. Aye. Senator Bruth. Aye. Okay. Thank you, guys. All right. So, I'll report this one. And it's going to have to make the stop in appropriations and I will ask about that language. But otherwise, I think it's ready to go. Actually, it's time to start. I've been over two. So then you bring me the thing to take upstairs? How does that work? It's available, right? Yeah. It goes to the left. I'll go right to the draft operations and I think there it will. Okay. At least what we'll do, I believe, is bring it to the secretary. Okay. Yeah, that's what we did last week with the committee bill and then it just shows up and then they'll refer it to the process. Yeah, okay. Just like we did. Good enough. All right. So, let's go back to the board bill for page 4. It's yours. Thank you. Okay. You're on page 4. This is the State Board's hours and duties section. So, we're going through and talking about a very top of that page, this question about whether we should have licensing ascares here. I think it should come out. Yeah. Do you think we need to address it? This was never here in the State Board's powers. It was just added by very Chair Carroll. I think under the mistaken belief that they have its powers because it's in their role. I see. So, I think it's just going through the role of saying, oh, these. Maybe they just print those rules that the board prints. Maybe. So, you're in the statute of the Board of Trustees. It's extra authority in the back. And that rule set is all pointed towards the Senate. Right. Yeah. So, I think I'll, maybe let's get that out. It's okay. And then, my four review rules proposed by the agency prior to pre-filing. So, that's where we're now parallel. Where the State Board's reviewing the agency's rules. And this was added by John? It was added by John. Okay. So, that was one specific question for the Secretary. And I thought, I thought if you were going to do this, the requirement should really be an AOE to have, to get comments from the agency of education. Instead of making the requirement on the board. That makes sense. What are the requirements? If you wanted them reviewed. I think this is an additional thing in addition to the normal rulemaking soliciting input. Yeah. For anybody. Yeah. Right. So, it doesn't, it doesn't stand in place of that. It adds to, if they want to pass rules, it adds to it. They have to pass it. At the very early stage. At the very early stage of that. Prior to pre-filing, they have to review them, but only if the AOE sent them prior to pre-filing. But there's a duty coming up on the Secretary to send them. Wow. So, you are doing it both? Well, yeah. Let's just quickly have a 30,000 foot discussion of that. And of course we'll ask the Secretary and we'll ask John Carroll. But what do we think about should rules proposed by AOE go to the State Board just as a matter of principle? I mean, I think there are pros and cons, but would anybody have a strong feeling one way or the other? But as a heads up or as a, hear the rules, get us comments before we will, we will look at your comments before we finalize it. I take this, tell me about Rogin. I take this as saying review rules, but without the power to stop the rules of force changing. That's true. The language that the Secretary has, just to be clear on the reverse side of this is on page 7, line 20, it reads, the Secretary is required to submit rules proposed by the Agency of Education to the State Board prior to pre-filing the proposed rules. The Secretary shall submit the proposed rules to the State Board for review within a timeframe that accommodates the State Board's review of the proposed rules and the Secretary's bill to respond. So it's basically best if there's no ability to change or otherwise go for it. Yeah, I mean, I guess you remember in the lead bill, especially Debbie and Ruth will probably remember from the conference committee, we wanted to make sure that, I think it was in the original bill, we had language saying that they should draw advice from AOE and Department of Health when they did their rules, or maybe they even drew in. But we specified that we wanted the rules to go to another agency as well. They should draw their advice, but they didn't have the power to stop it, but we wanted to make them put their heads together. So this is doing that with everything that AOE does. So just as a matter of course, they'll be setting rules of all kinds to the State Board. What, does it work the other way? No. I don't know if that's up. I mean, if you're getting friends, you definitely don't want that extra step. If we didn't put this in, can the State Board weigh in on any rulemaking? During the process, sure. They're not prior, as they are. Which is out of public conduct, however, since they're with everybody else. They're shaping their rules appropriately. Nothing's preventing them from getting their input voluntarily. Right. Yeah, I mean, I guess I would be for leaving it the way it is now, and then again, having the two of them, sort of. I mean, because, you know, really it is turf that we're talking about. This was prepared by the State Board, so obviously John has a specific approach here, and this is still set up in an oversight manner. I don't know that I think that's such a bad idea to have a semi-independent set of eyes on it. So, let's leave it for now. I imagine that's the place where the Secretary will go. Anyways, keep going. Okay, all right. Okay, so we're about to page four again. There are some minor changes to number nine here, line seven. So, a pomegranate set of implement, for example, moved to pre-K from kindergarten. So this is student performance. So that's been changed in the last, at the end. It's a standard show include. It's a standard for reading level proficiency for students. Now it says class grade level, or levels that the Board is going to determine before specific grade three. So it gets a little bit more bad, too. And then coming down to the bottom of the page, we start to leave language. Everything that's just been debated from bottom of page four, page five, page six. Up to the top, page seven, those are all things moving to the Secretary. Okay. You see them in a minute because they're going to be over there. Page 21, on page seven, so line three, report annually to the Governor in their assembly on the current condition and future prospects in education for Maud. I think that's a really great example right there, basically what he's trying to do. So you look at what he's gotten rid of, the development of education policy. That was language that was really fought over when we made this, the Commissioner of the Secretary and the Department of the Agency and the Board was adamant that they were going to be the main education policy shop. But now he's changed it to basically reporting on what they see but without the sense that they're supposed to be developing policy according to him or her. So I actually like that change because I think this draft places the burden for policy on the elected people, on the legislature and the administration which is answerable through the Governor's election. And it goes back to the very beginning of their powers and duties which has the introduction which talks about their duties to establish and really update a bunch of strategic vision. That's for a young people. That's where it's going right now. So now we move on to section two, page seven and this is the Secretary's duties. So Secretary shall implement rules adopted by the State Board. Hold on. Secretary shall implement rules adopted by the State Board. So right there you stop. State Board is doing rulemaking but implementation, execution is for the Secretary of those rules. And shall. And then this sentence all moves from basically the State Board over here to make regulations governing the attendance and records of attendance of all students and the deportment of students to take public schools. Directly agencyofeducations.ru pursuant to top three, yeah. Does deportment of students attending public schools need like in reality? What are they reporting on? Deportment. Deportment. Good question. Bill, what does that mean? I mean, I assume back in the day that teaching them to be good citizens, behavior citizenship, those sorts of things. It's outmoded language. Yeah. Go into the attendance and records of attendance of all students just trying to think do they do anything that could come under the heading of deportment now? They do, yes. Just like hazing and bullying. Oh, I was thinking of like the clothing. Yeah. But I mean, for instance, hazing and bullying. Remembering, right, those rules come out of the State Board? Those are the State Board rules. Yeah. They've been moving to the Secretary to do this job, I guess. Yeah. Just that we can't really quite say what it is. Is that something we want to have in there? Yeah. Sure. I think if we take that out, we might want some general descriptor there. Because as it stands now, it's specifically attendance and this big umbrella. And I agree deportment's not necessarily... Why don't we circle it? We'll ask John Carroll and the Secretary what they think. Maybe they have a suggestion. Okay. Okay. Line 14. So the Secretary will direct the agency to adopt rules as necessary or appropriate. We'll just push out of the Secretary's the agency's powers and duties. And then ask the Secretary about the joint assembly. And then, as we went through this before, they'll assume the rules to the agency to say board, that's here. And then line five talks about approve the status of independent schools as approved independent schools. So the rules were adopted by the State Board on approval of independent schools. But the actual execution, again, has been done by the Secretary to approve the schools under the rules. Okay. I'm sorry. You might have just said this. I was looking. But the rulemaking series for independent schools is still with the State Board. Correct. And this is just that approval kind of... Approval of individual schools in terms of the rules as the Secretary. Okay. Since the established criteria, governing the establishment of a system for the receipt, deposit, accounting, and disbursement of all funds by supervisory unions and school districts, 27 ensure that the agency develops information, plans, and assistance to aid in making technology and telecommunications available and coordinated in all school districts. The Secretary shall develop guidelines for distribution of federal, state, or private funds designated for the development or expansion of disinflating technologies. The guidelines will encourage consistent and any term or conditions established by the funding source collaboration between schools and school districts to realize economic and educational efficiencies. So can we stop there? So is this language a language that John Carroll wrote? No, this is listed exactly from their course. Oh, where we repeal. All existing language is moved. Got it. I'm just wondering about that. The guidelines shall encourage consistent and any terms or conditions established by the funding source. I take it as reference to federal funds. Robert. It's a little... in the age of privatization, it's a little loosey-goosey in the language. In other words, could you have an administration that would take money and then say this asks us to go along with their conditions for the money? You know what I mean? Could we say established by the source of federal funding or private funds? Where? Does it say OIC? Blend 12 starts this idea that the secretary might be working with private funds and if he or she is, they'll develop guidelines consistent with terms and conditions established by the funding source. That's only for the development or expansion of distance learning technologies. That's specific to that. Yeah, that's true. I mean, does that line even necessary? You mean the line, the guidelines shall encourage? All of 27. Yeah, all of 27. I think you could get rid of the dependent clause there and just say the guidelines encourage collaboration between schools and school districts to realize the communication efficiencies. Because if there's a money source that forbids you to collaborate with other schools, we shouldn't be using any. What would you guys think about that? I'm donating that lesson. Well, I can only hear from somebody what this would happen. All right, so I'll put a bracket around that with a question mark. Yeah, I'm just sensitive these days to, you know, there are big-dollar donors out there that are looking, of course, to insert money into their educational systems with strengths attached. This seems like you could read it that while we took the money now, we're legally bound to go along with their guidelines. So in effect, you have the donor writing the guidelines. But anyway, it's a good point to get asked. Yeah. Okay, keep going. Now, 28 says report annually on the condition of education statewide and on a supervisory union school district basis. Your report shall include information on the claim of standards for student performance, number of types of complaints of hazing, harassment of bullying, and responses to complaints, financial resources and expenditures, and community and social indicators. Your report shall be organized and presented in a way that is easily understandable by the joint public, and that enables each school district and SU to determine the strengths and weaknesses to the extent consistent with state and federal privacy laws and regulations data on hazing, harassment, or bullying incidents. You shall be deteriorated by incident type, including deterioration by ethnic groups, racial groups, religious groups, gender sexual orientation, gender identity, disability status, language learning status. The secretary should use the information in the report to determine whether the students in each school, school district and SU are provided educational opportunities substantially equal to those provided under school districts and SUs. We've updated pretty recently for the F1 with ethnic studies. So this report here just to contrast, this is a pretty detailed report from the secretary that's already, so almost all the stuff is being done by the secretary in fact today. So this report is being done early we went through a report that the page 7 that the state board has to do, which is going to high level conditions for these prospects we talked about. So there are two reports, one more high level, one more detailed here. And then page 9 again, line 15, in short, that Vermont students enroll in their career technical education have access to substantially equal education opportunity by developing a system to evaluate the equalizing effects of Vermont's educational finance system in case of quality standards. So I'm curious as to where that's being done. That's a pretty big task. And then we move on to performance changes. So this is the first step. So these we had nothing to do yet. Can I just, you said you're curious as to if this is being done? Yeah. Well, I was looking at the scope of the task and law. Yeah, sure. It is. Developing system to evaluate the equalizing effects. System. I'm not sure if I know what that exactly means. For instance, we commissioned the PICUS report. Yeah. And the PICUS report basically said that 60 and 68 are doing a pretty good job equalizing opportunities. So but developing a system to evaluate is different than commissioning one group. Right. Yeah. And one could argue that the waiting study was also about this too. Right. I'll make a note as a question of that as well. Page 10 The leader assistant says it should not say current law, it should say a law in 16 BSA Chapter 3. So these are performing changes. It's a chapter. Times 16, Honestly Board of Education. So the first set of performing changes is to that one chapter. And then we'll go through the rest of the chapters after that. Okay. It is an amendment to section 41 authority of agency to use federal funds to aid education. And so this says before we get to the highlight it says the agency is designated as a social agency to establish an investor in a statewide plan required as a condition for receipt of federal funds made available to the state for any educational purposes including critical education and adult education and literacy. The language university underlined moved from the state force powers. So it's now being put into the secretary's authority. So with the state board rules the agency is responsible for administering or supervising policy for adult education and literacy activities in the state performing all the duties and powers prescribed by law pertaining to adult education and literacy and acting as a state approval agency for educational institutions conducting programs for adult education and literacy. So again that's more of the execution side of it. The rule linking to this is under the state board the execution side of it is under the secretary. Next page. Section 4 on line 3 redesignates section 166 So it moves it from the state board chapter to chapter 1 to chapter 1 which is a chapter about administration generally. So moving it within the state board chapter into a chapter that's more generic and this is the approval approved and recognized intent school section and line 9 says application the secretary to approve the intent school etc and the substantial compliance of state board rules line 20 approval before I forget on this is there a way you could or maybe you did already indicate which which are being moved so this is you're off. Everything is under state board today. Everything is under state board half of that page. Got it. Okay. So this section here changes in this section but basically what's happening in this section is how level is again the state board is responsible for making rules approval for intent schools the secretary is the one that actually approves those schools. So the changes here all on that theme of doing that. So line 20 approval may be granted without the secretary's evaluation in the case of an intent school created by a private state regional agency reference to state board for trying purposes an application the secretary shall approve an intent school the office can do that etc line 7 the secretary may delegate to the agency to evaluate safety and adequacy of buildings which can be granted to be inducted but shall consider the findings and recognitions of any agency in making the secretary's approval decision where are you I'm on page 12 row line 10 and then line 11 approvals under the system B shall be for a term established by rule of the secretary but not greater than 5 years so then it says the secretary may revoke suspended or opposed conditions upon intent school 30 more executions related no change is on page 13 page 14 line 1 the withdrawal or condition of the school is a gradation am I stopping? so I know that this is existing law but since we're going through it I'm curious page 12 that paragraph about kindergarten the secretary may delegate to another state to the authority to evaluate the safety and adequacy of buildings in which kindergarteners are conducted assuming that came in when kindergarteners were moving from half day to full day or from not existing to existing and there was concern about whether our school for buildings were adequate enough for kindergarteners and now the same concerns not to bring this up before we get the bill but these are the same concerns that some people have about pre-k programs now it seems to me that everybody is comfortable with kindergarten being in school buildings but it's pre-k that this is an issue for so I'm wondering if this is out of date and maybe might come up in the context of that pre-k bill and these might let's mark it for a question okay I would hesitate yeah change it to pre-k what the dual owners say page 14 page 13 we need a context for this page 13 of my report it says after an internet school experiences any out-of-the-falling financial employment during the period of its approved staffs this was one of those by the secretary and then it has a list on the next page number 6 there was draw or condition of the school's predation financial grounds by the private state or regional agency reclaimed by the state board for great purposes that states the same and just a reminder we wrote this a couple of years ago and it could get used for the company school thing and after talking with John Carroll and the secretary it seems like these rules worked fine or gave them the authority they needed to go in and basically demand oversight gave them some teeth line 5 the secretary who believes that has presumed that school lacks so again more execution related the secretary should modify the school line 10 if the secretary after having provided the school opportunity to respond does not find the school has satisfactorily responded or demonstrated capacity the territory may establish a review team is that wasn't in the state board of education that did the review team this year we're back we're back so in the case of higher ed isn't that the state board put together a team to go in in this context okay my question was the report of its findings and recommendations did it used to be the reverse that a report went from the state board to AOE where are you sir I'm sorry I'm at bottom of 14 19-20 so that's not changed so that report today we'll go to the state board and then I'll do this vote so without the changes it would be the state board submitting a report to itself um I thought too okay or maybe it's the team the team I think the old language with the state board may establish a review team that with the sound of the school includes two yeah so the review team would submit a report to the state board okay and it was the state board that created the review team that went to the company school and we want so the state board retains rulemaking authority about private schools but the actual oversight and enforcement would be under the sector yeah and that's what we want well so that's an open question um obviously John speaking for the board wants to keep um rulemaking for approved independence with the board I'm sure I would bet Dan French has something to say about that especially if they're taking over oversight of the finances yeah um but again I think if you buy the idea that having an independent board is a good thing and that it can provide a way to deep politicize certain functions I don't have a problem with them retaining their rulemaking authority over independent schools um because what happened with the 2200 series could just as easily happen with a secretary who was very very determined to re-shame the environment for approved independence so what I like is having the two of them providing oversight on each other so I guess in that case it doesn't matter to me which of them has it as long as the other ones check so in the future if you ran into that you'd have a potential ally outside of the one whether it's the board or so I'm fine with that duty split I think it makes sense to have the secretary be doing this kind of stuff because the board is all volunteer so when they send this team out um you know that's probably a certain amount of you know hardship on them to have to assemble people to actually go do that work on a volunteer basis as opposed to the agency saying to you know you have to go today I think I think we're talking about that we're going to talk about this later about the funding because they wanted positions to do some of this work right although they're already doing some of this work without them it seems like that's a key issue one of the things I'm wondering is why have the board do any rules I'd like your idea to check but when does it have all the rules by AOE and then have them check on all the rules well they'd still have to have a board to review them and then legal support right I mean it's an argument to be made that we just have the secretary and AOE do all the rules and in fact Dan French could commit and say I wouldn't be surprised if he did I think John's reply would be that as Jim pointed out they have institutional memory and a historical connection to those bodies of rulemaking you know I think if we're going to keep them well one way to think about it is that this is not the last word we're spinning off about half of their third of their rulemaking to AOE and it may be that 10 years down the road somebody decides to get rid of their rulemaking altogether but this seems like a reasonable re-division so a strong argument from either well basically a strong argument from Dan French I'd be inclined to let them keep two thirds of what they're now doing but how do you feel Andrew? No, that makes sense let's say could ratchet out for letting them be part of it I mean I think their institutional memory could be used in reviewing but they're kind of like reviewing and commenting on all the rules and submitting that to the L car and I car and that's an important role still I will say that in terms of the special aid rules the advocates I don't know if they spoke to any of you but they definitely came to Kate Webb and myself and they were sort of outraged how AOE was going about the rulemaking they didn't like the draft rules AOE listened to them and said thank you very much we're not taking any of your advice and was going to move forward John Carroll on the board kind of opposed that quick steamrolling up of the advisory group and now I have a compromise worked out with them that seems a case in point for what we're talking about So even if they have to approve them I'd be okay with that but that makes it hard because then they are if they don't agree then how do you resolve it so you can really need the authority to submit the rules by somebody and you would even I mean that's ICAR now and they're just looking at legislative intent well now they're I guess the compromise is now they're going to see all the draft rules in early form the board and they could make a stink about it if they don't like what they see to go back to the positions you know John in his testimony in the case I was just talking about he said if we had to we will hire legal help to basically sue AOE and that's my worst case scenario is that the legislature gives the board independent legal help and they sue the legislature or they sue AOE because that's not good for anybody I don't think on the other hand they want to have people to review the rules and give them legal advice so the way it works now is they draw on AOE and they make it work so again lacking a strong argument from AOE that they don't want to do it the current way I think I don't favor giving the board positions to the employer especially since we're spinning off a third of their work it's tough to go to the appropriations committee and say okay so we're on page 16 16 or about 50 it says if the secretary concludes that an improvement in the school act spins with capacity then the secretary makes the action again execution oriented and then it says in considering whether an impact school act spins with capacity the secretary should take why actions the secretary should take if the secretary makes this finding the secretary makes it so with very spoke so again more execution oriented so Jim why don't we stop there okay just everybody put a note where we stopped and we'll pick this up tomorrow okay and I imagine the rest goes pretty quick compared to we're going now it's not worse really on page 15 we only have 98 pages to go I thought the wholesale transfer gave us a lot of stuff to look over that was underlined but the pages just changing state order all that's seen through our thing annual function of awkward language in the summaries where I'm looking at saying well doesn't make sense to me there's so many old things that don't make sense like department exactly since we're talking about it we might as well update it this page thank you very much so committee just a reminder we're breaking now because I have the sexual assault task force that I have