 Good afternoon, everyone. For those of you who are joining us remotely, this is Senate Education. It is Wednesday, February 10th. We are going to start the day with Carolyn Weir. Ms. Weir, thanks for joining us. Ms. Weir is from the McClure Foundation. And as many of you will recall, the McClure Foundation gave Vermonters a very generous gift last year, which hopefully she'll take the time just to bring us back to that moment, why they did what they did, as well as some of the outcomes that they witnessed from having done that. This is, I would say, a continuation of the conversation that we have all had around what might we be doing in the future for Vermont students, and with regard to giving them greater access to higher education. Along those lines, I just want to let senators know that Senator Hooker, the vice chair and I had some time this afternoon with the money chairs in both the house and the Senate. Talking a little bit, they were very interested. And Senator Hooker, please add to this, or correct this if I'm getting any of it wrong. I think they were very pleased to see our general take from yesterday's testimony. They are going to be partnering with us going forward, again, on how best to allocate direct, recommend funds going in certain directions from the $128 million that education is getting in CARES funds, some of which can be directed, some of which cannot be directed, but Senator Kitchell is interested in us at the very least making certain that the agency of education, our schools, mental health professionals, Vermonters in general, know where we believe financial support is going to be needed. So we will continue those conversations. I've asked Secretary French to come in on Monday, that'll give us an opportunity to share with him some of our thinking that came out of yesterday's discussion and also hear from the agency of education. What we did not have an opportunity to talk to Senator Kitchell and others about, which hopefully will, I'll have a time either later today or tomorrow, and that brings us back to really what we're talking about right now, and that is what can we do with some of these CARES dollars or general fund dollars or education dollars, but likely general fund or CARES federal funds to again, give our students greater access to higher education. Senator Hooker, am I missing anything? Did you want to add anything? No, just that it was clear that, we only have control over a certain amount of the money. Much of the funds would go to the schools and we were hoping that we could have some direction as to how that would be spent, but we can't really tell them what to do with it. Right. And to quote Senator Kitchell, she's hoping to use the bully pulpit in some ways, get this out there that these are the needs that policy committees have identified and sort of for some of those conversations. So with that, Ms. Weir, thank you again for taking the time to be with us and for your outreach and everything that you and the McClure Foundation have done for Vermonters. I thought a great way to start would be for you to just tell us a little bit about yourself as well as the history behind the grant, what you did, why you did it, and we'll have a conversation. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the committee for welcoming me to testify about what we've learned from our graduation gift to the Vermont High School Class of 2020. For the record, my name's Carolyn Weir. I'm here on behalf of the McClure Foundation where I serve as executive director. As it's helpful, I invite you to refer to the three-page fact sheet on the initiative that I've submitted for today's testimony, which I can also drop in the chat if helpful. I have about six, seven minutes of testimony to share and of course welcome questions I'm during or after. We are a 25-year affiliate of the Vermont Community Foundation. We've spent the past decade or so exclusively focused on workforce development and supporting college and career training systems in ways that promote equity and resilience. So when the scope of the pandemic became clear last spring, including signs of mass deferments and post-secondary continuation among those seniors approaching high school graduation, we asked ourselves a question. In this time of uncertainty, what could we do to offer graduating seniors an easy option for continuing their education and then behind the scenes support a relational handoff from high school-based counselors to college-based academic and career advisors who could help chart next steps? So keeping to our design values of hope and simplicity, in terms of both messaging and access, we landed on a graduation gift to the entire Vermont High School Class of 2020 of one free course of their choosing at CCV last fall. So our gift covered tuition in all fees associated with any course of student those take, including courses that are part of shorter terms or ticket programs. And given all of the uncertainties that were in play last year and quite frankly continue to be in play this year, we weren't sure how many students would take us up on the offer. It was just an idea and we were trying to do the right thing by young people. By September, over 600 students had enrolled in their free course, representing over 10% of graduates statewide and double the typical enrollment of this cohort at CCV. So our gift at a time when first year enrollment at community colleges was down about 20% nationally. And for me, this is the headline, enrollment doubled when new enrollment nationally at community colleges plummeted. Now can we credit all of that to the grad gift? I imagine not, but it's clearly part of the story. And as you know, Vermont has long been an outlier nationally in terms of the percentage of the general fund allocated to public higher education in terms of the tuition cost of public colleges generally and the community college in particular. And those are conditions we believe have impacted Vermont's demographics, the credentialing of Vermont's workforce. So to see Vermont profiled nationally as a bright spot in terms of community college enrollment last fall was really something. To us, the scale of enrollment in this initiative demonstrates that when the public's perception of cost barriers are removed, Vermonters enroll. Also the perception of ease of access matters a lot, especially at a time like this. So early demographics data confirmed that the gift benefited students from all backgrounds about half say they would be first in family with a degree. Interestingly enough Orleans County had the highest enrollment rate relative to its young adult population. And we have just heard in so many ways from students and parents that the gift relieved financial stress, helped clarify career interests and abilities including college going abilities and encouraged or convinced these young adults to continue their education amid so much disruption. So a student named Nick said college was something he dreamed about but never thought he'd be able to afford. He's from a low-income household quote, every dollar counts. He took two CCB courses last fall including intro to visual communications. And he said college felt manageable because half of his courses were paid for. He was working at the time as a full-time personal care attendant while taking the courses and his dream is to become a graphic designer. So just recently we had access to new course success data, student survey data. And so we now know that of the 1200 or so CCB courses in which these students enrolled last fall, 90% were completed, about 70% were completed successfully. And what matters the most to us is that 80% of surveyed students interacted with their CCB advisor during the fall semester. A large majority of those meetings involved discussion or development of plans for next steps in education or career development. And 81% of surveyed students indicate they plan to continue their education. As I read that, I think that means in the next year. So looking back, we point to three factors in the early success of this initiative or this idea. Number one, the core design values were hope and simplicity. Every single component of this initiative was designed to inspire hope and to be really easy to access and to understand. The scholarships were first dollar in, they were only available at CCB. Students could choose any course available at CCB. Every single person who graduated high school in Vermont in 2020 was eligible. And we believe that structuring the gift is an easily understood and universal opportunity for students to take up across the board. Our messaging was very simple, it was positive. We told young people, we believed in them and we thought they deserved something they could count on in this time of uncertainty. Number two, in terms of the factors that we think contributed to the take up at the scale that we saw was that we partnered with an institution that embraced a really big idea on a really short timeline and was positioned to quickly scale its courses and its supports. CCB was just ready to serve their Vermont's access institution, right? They enroll the greatest number of Vermonters of any college in the state. Becoming a CCB student is easy, so is transferring CCB credits, which made them the logical choice of partner in a continuation initiative. And number three, number three of three, we ensured extra supports for CCB and for students, like some nominal funding to help administer and evaluate the initiative and incentives for students to connect with academic advisors, career consultants, peer advisory groups. So all in the 2020 grad gift cost $655,000. I think it's worth noting that historically, the McClure Foundation is not a scholarship funder, but we have come to believe that scholarships are a particularly useful pool during the pandemic for inspiring public hope in the value and accessibility of college and career training. Now, we dipped into our invested assets, almost double what we budgeted in 2020 in order to make it happen. And what we learned has helped us clarify our vision of what's possible in Vermont, which is guaranteed affordable college and career training options that are well-messaged, easily understood and accessed, that lead to good jobs and create more equity and resilience in communities. And while scholarships are a tool that philanthropy has long leaned on, I'm not sure that we see scholarships alone as a systemic long-term approach for affordability unless they're paired with significant direct investments, including tuition reductions in the places where students who are least likely to continue are most likely to go. I thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony and I welcome any questions that you have. Great. Well, first of all, again, thank you. What it's incredible and clearly had incredible results. And we are looking also now to see if there are ways that we can continue this kind of work. So in that way also, I think it has us thinking, of course that it would be, one of the things that you said at the end there was that you feel scholarship isn't usually part of the McClure Foundation work, but in this particular case, given the pandemic, you decided to move in this direction. And it sounds like this kind of investment was, please correct me if I'm wrong because I don't know why I'd love to be wrong, that this was a one-time thing. And for you to do additional scholarship support in any way, you would also be looking for the state to partner to actually lower the tuition in some ways or look for perhaps the state to invest in other ways in CCB. Am I articulating that correctly? I think so, Senator Campion. And I can walk through a couple of those. Yes, I think, as I mentioned, we are historically not a scholarship funder, although we do believe that scholarships are a useful tool during the pandemic because they are a mechanism for inspiring so much hope broadly. The reason that we don't see scholarships alone as a or the systemic approach for college affordability, especially from a policy perspective is that they just don't fundamentally lower tuition rates across the board, right? And so they're limited in their ability to change the public's protection of affordability in a state with incredibly high tuition. Again, so that's part of why we would love to see systemic investment in the institutions and places where the students who are likely to continue are most likely to go. I think there are ways to make institutional investments that drive down the cost of enrollment for everyone. And yet this is a pandemic and in 2021, the conditions of uncertainty in families and the labor market in terms of how college and career training are delivered are continuing. And so, yes, I think Vermonters do deserve extra one-time enrollment incentives this year that inspire hope about the value of college and career training. Absent that national trends, it seems to me pretty clearly indicate we'll see a lot of deferred continuation and stopped out students. I think before I go over to everyone, I just want to mention the one thing that was incredible to me is for so long, I've thought that we have again, this high graduation rate from high school and then a lot of students don't continue on to higher ed. And I think in some ways one thinks, and there could be some issues with preparedness at the pre-K through 12th grade, there might be some issues, but one of the things that you've shown me is that it's likely even more than that or maybe even not that, it is about the financial expense. It is about a family sitting there, even you're a solid student, you've worked hard, but you look at these costs, you're a first generation college student and that kickstart, that process is really hard. So I think the other thing that this grant, this gift has shown us is that, so much of it is about accessibility and the lack of accessibility financially. So thank you. Senator Perslik, I'm sorry, did you? Yeah, I'm ready, I just had a flag. Oh, no problem. Go ahead. Thank you for that testimony and for the, it's a good example of creative philanthropy, but I hear what you're saying about long range institutional investments. I run a fund for the state and we're similar looking, we try to invest our money in things that do market transformation and things like scholarships, I would not say is doing market transformation, but I think it is a creative solution for the times. One question that I have that maybe is not really for you, maybe it's for President Judy or something, is what has been the impact of the other students that go to CCB of having, I guess maybe not so much your scholarships and maybe it's not appropriate question. I'm thinking more of all the high schoolers that are going, I mean, I guess new high schoolers that you guys helped support is a little different, but I don't know if you've had any of your data gathering from the gift talked about other benefits other than the students that took advantage of it. Does that make sense? In terms of Senator Parchelike influence on aspirations for other classes or participation in concurrent enrollment opportunities like dual enrollment in early college, are you thinking something outside of those lines? Or even, did classroom discussions become more dynamic? I mean- Yeah, bigger classes or just to help the institution. Yeah, I guess anything that you guys looked at or were you guys really focused on the impact of the kids that took advantage of it? We were really focused on the impact of this cohort of 600 to 650, but I think what was clear to us is that CCB with its 20 plus year history of online learning, it's set class size, the work that it had already done to build out both academic supports, but also non-academic supports like career consulting was just ready to scale. So I shouldn't have been surprised by the degree of responsiveness of CCB. They've been our Cornerstone grantee partner for 10 years, but we went from idea to launch public announcement with the governor in 10 days and CCB's responsiveness as an institution and their ability to scale. And I can't imagine being matched. Senator, did you have a follow up question, Senator Perslick? No, okay. Senator Lyons and then Senator Hooker. Thank you. This is really great to hear. And I'm a strong supporter of CCB, so you've just reinforced that support. I do have a question. As you, you said that 70% of the students passed their classes and that's probably a very, that's good. When they, when you finished talking with students as they came out of this experiment, I call it an experiment, but this experience maybe, did you do a thorough sort of exit interview to try to understand what else besides scholarships would A have attracted them into the academic environment after high school and then be what might help them succeed while they're at the institution or to continue on. I mean, obviously, as we all know that CCB has very strong non-academic supports, but perhaps this little cohort might have offered something further. And I don't know if you did that type of analysis afterwards. Thank you for the question, Senator Lyons. I think the answers are broadly yes, no, and yes. So yes, we built a survey for students about the experience and about the influence of this recourse on their plans and we incented participation in and completion of that survey. And as a part of that process of identified students willing to participate in things like focus groups to tell us even more about their experience. We did not ask specifically your first question, but we did ask specifically your second, which is essentially in what you the student have told us is your plan for next steps, including continuing in education, continuing in education and working, working, taking care of family, et cetera. What help do you need to take that next step? Is it completing FAFSA? Is it help finding a program? Is it help transferring to another institution? Is it help finding a job? Is it help completing a resume? So it's that type of information that is helping inform how CCB and philanthropy broadly continues to support this cohort as we also take a look at this idea as a pandemic era approach for supporting continuation. Senator Hooker. Thank you, Senator Campion. And thank you, Ms. Wheeler. This is fabulous. And I wish we could give all our kids gifts like this every year, but I have a question about the application process to get involved. You said 600 kids, about 10% of our grads. Is that 10% of the grads? How easy was the application process? I think that even the idea of filling out an application to go to college is a deterrent for some kids. And I'm just curious to know that. Secondly, the followups as far as the kids are concerned and you mentioned that about what are your next steps? How easy would it be for this cohort to continue at CCB? What would they have to go through? And thirdly, just a comment that I think the facility of online courses for this generation makes a huge difference. Wouldn't, to me, because I'm afraid of online stuff, but kids are, you know, the digital natives can participate with a lot of human and expertise that perhaps is something that we need to consider, although CCB has been doing it for a long time. And maybe we just need to expand on that. Thanks for those questions, Senator Hooker. In terms of the application process, you know, the community College of Vermont is Vermont's access institution. So the fewest barriers to application and entry of any institution in the state. So no application fees, no essays. And that was a big part of, again, why we selected CCB as the single institution to partner with in this continuation, in this continuation effort. In terms of continuation, like all CCB students, this cohort of 600 was supported in taking their best next step, inclusive of continuing at CCB. From what I understand from CCB, final data on continuation will be available soon once colleges share their enrollment data, post-ADD drop period with the National Student Clearing House, Senator Campion, you probably know a lot more about that than I do. We'd be thrilled, I think, to see something in the range of 50% continuation this spring semester, given the uncertainties still in play. And the fact this was a first dollar in fall semester offer, which means that many of the students who took us up on this offer may have had no plan, not completed FAFSA, not explored eligibility for a Vermont state grant and may have received that support over the course of the fall or spring to complete FAFSA for the first time. And maybe thinking about continuation in terms of fall 2021, when those supports go into effect. And I fully agree with you on online learning. We were hearing from young people that that modality worked well for them, I think in part because CCB managed expectations early and well and making the call to go almost completely online early. And of course their track record in that space is a long one. Is we are remembering, I'm sorry, Senator Hooker, did you have a follow up? Okay, can you say something about where, how was it advertised and marketed? Was that left with CCB? I was just curious how Orleans County ended up using it a lot. So how, was that something that in the end it just was the responsibility of CCB? You know, it ended up being such a hopeful announcement at such an uncertain time that honestly the news spread like wildfire. I think in hindsight, and this idea wasn't conceptualized until maybe June 2nd and we went public on June 12th, I think. And that was the day that most students graduated from high school. So initially I was concerned that we lost an opportunity to hold hands with our K-12 partners and especially school counselors at the high school level in getting the word out since most students had already graduated by the time this was public. And yet in that student survey that I mentioned, 50% of surveyed students said they heard about the gift through their high school. So our K-12 partners in the state went above and beyond in letting graduated students know about this opportunity. So it was really between June 12th and end of August that those 600 enrolled. That's great. Other questions, comments? It's incredible, I hope. Thank you. I hope you'll share the success nationally because I know we are not an anomaly here and I know the federal government also is trying to give greater access particularly as it relates to community colleges. So I'm sure that the Biden administration and other states would be really interested in learning about how successful this gift was. Thank you, Senator. I hope so too. I caught yesterday that Dr. Biden's framed community colleges as our most powerful engine of prosperity. I think in the context of COVID recovery but I think it holds through I think it holds true generally too. And as we think about the likely direction of federal funding in the coming years and the likelihood that that funding will hinge on existing state support for affordable community college or other public college tuition, I think it's... Ms. Weir, you froze. I'll tell you, even last night on the national news I was watching, it's no one is immune from it. So let's just give her a moment. If our conversation ever gets really tense or controversial, I'm gonna pretend to freeze and just lock my... I was gonna say, I think we found a little place that needs some added internet service. That's right, that's right. No, very. I think we may have lost her. Oh, here we, she's in the waiting room, over here. Okay. Well, there you are. I'm so sorry about that. That was the end of my sentence. No problem at all. No, we were just saying no one is immune from those moments of freezing. So no problem. Any other, anything else from you Ms. Weir or from anyone in the committee? We hope to have you back as we make our way through trying to build on the incredible work that you all did and just congratulations and thank you. Thank you very much for the invitation. All right, have a good afternoon. You too, take care. Thanks. Great, so committee, we are shifting gears two directions for the rest of the afternoon. We are returning to S16. You may recall, we made a few edits to it. Mr. Demeray is here to take us through those edits. And then we are going to hear from Secretary French who will respond to the most recent draft. I'm still, and I'm looking to Senator Lyons. Senator Lyons, have you been given the green light from Senator Ballant to take Bill? We're gonna need to get some committee votes going I'll loop to Senator Ballant. I'm just wondering if you have any insight into whether or not non-COVID bills can now make their way to the floor. You know, I can't answer that. The bill, the one bill that we sent, we voted on today has- Money? No, no money, but it does relate to stress and mental health issues. Yeah. And actually before, during and after COVID, but it's Senator Taranzini will be justifying its existence when he presents it. Senator Taranzini, I am going to do you a big favor right now. In case, you know, I think this has ended, but I'm sure, no, okay. Of course, I tried to warn him about that. Go ahead. Yes, you know, this hazing if you will, or not hazing that's, you know, but these people, you know, people get up, I would just be as prepared as possible. But the good news is, I think we've sort of evolved out of it, actually. I think it's good for us to evolve out of it. And, but I'm sure you'll get one or two, hopefully humorous questions. Well, I appreciate that, Senator Campion, that Senator Lyons did warn me of that no less than two hours ago, but I did consider my options, and one is just to hit the leave, the red leave button on my screen, so I could just leave the meeting. That's right. Freeze. That's right, so. Well, I am not, you know, there are people, in fact, everybody on this screen save for me is gifted when they get up and do these floor reports. I never have been. So I'm not the one to look to you for coaching, but I'll be there to defend you if you need any. I very much appreciate it. So it's a tough crowd. It can be a tough crowd. All right, so. I will say that if you need a question to ask, I'm happy to give you one. Maybe. Right, right. You can defer questions to the chair of your committee. That's true. That's true. Although, but if it's coming from your chair, then I don't know. Right, exactly. No, he will probably say something like, well, you should know the answer to that. That's right. That's right. I have a feeling it's gonna be great. Okay, so, you know, the question to center lines, I will loop to Senator Ballant and just check in. It looks like I think we can move this and vote on it probably later this week, but I'll confirm with her. So Mr. Demeray, thanks for being with us and please take us through the changes and you are muted. Okay, can you hear me? Yes. Great. Do you want this on the screen or are you seeing this on your screen? Unless other senators want to see it on the screen, I'm fine with it not being on the screen. It's easier for me to see questions. Everyone has it. Okay, so I think we're okay without it. Thank you. Okay, so for the record, Jim Demeray going through draft 2.1 of your amendment S16, which is the creation of the School Discipline Advisory Council. Virtually changes from the draft you reviewed last week. Just quickly have a few comments. So the first change is on page four, on lines 15 and 16. So it's just been said that the membership of the task force has to be a balanced representation of the following. Jim, just so you know, it's technology, you're in and out a little bit and it's a technology related. Oh, can you hear me now? Yes, that sounds good. Let me take a back camera. Okay. Can you hear me better now? Yeah? Perfect, perfect. Okay. Okay, so that's the first change. And then on the page five on membership diversity. Again, we may reference your balance representation of public and approved independent schools, including a third puke schools. And then the next change is on page seven, top of the page. So one of the duties now, number seven is to review how other states address exclusionary discipline. And then the report requirements have changed a bit. We got more specific saying that the report has to address each of the task force duties under section D. And then it says the agency of education shall share the report and any of the insights and best practices with my educators, school administrators, policy makers, agencies, and education and advocacy organizations as you'll post the report on its website. And the incorrect references to subsections has been fixed. And those are the only changes. One question I have, it's really for the committee on page four, we have high school students. Do we wanna just keep that? I mean, I'm assuming high school students, is there any reason to just keep it students? Or is it just that we've, as I'm actually asking it, it seems like it really would be high school students that we want. It's not as though somebody's going to have, you know, I think a younger student. So yeah, Senator Perchlick. Yeah. It says it, doesn't it? It says high school students. I was thinking it should just say students, but then as I was asking the question, I thought, well, it probably does make sense for it to be high school students, Senator Perchlick. I agree. So I had another question separate from that. Okay, go ahead. On page five, where the change was balanced representation of public and independent schools and including therapeutic schools. I just wondered if we want balanced representation. Does that mean there has to be equal number of independent schools in public schools? Or is it balanced in their proportional numbers? Cause it seems like that could be read. You have to have an equal number of public and approved independence. And I'm all supportive of approved independence being involved, but I don't know if I want, or if it's a good idea to have, you know, one half of each. I think it's a very good point. So it's not clear and it's your answer. Your dual interpretations could be, it's not clear. So we can clarify that point. What if we were to just get rid of balanced? How would you feel about that? Because then representation of public and approved independence schools, including therapeutic schools. I think Senator Perchlick makes a good point. I wouldn't want it 50-50. I wouldn't, you know, want it, I, how does that feel getting rid of balanced, okay? And then it, okay, good. Why don't you get rid of that? Okay. Any other immediate concern, seeing that we'll continue our work on this. And as is tradition, a new Senator will present it. So it's likely Senator Chittenden's and Senator Taranzini is already covered in health and welfare. We just, anything else at this point before we hear from Secretary French. Okay. Jim, if you don't mind staying on the line. All right, of course. Terrific, thank you. Mr. Secretary. Good afternoon, how are you, sir? Good to see you. Likewise, how are you? Good, thanks. We appreciate you coming in. You've been part of this conversation already. As you know, we've made some changes and we'd love to have you, you weigh in and give us your advice, comments. You name it. Well, for the record, Dan French, Secretary of Education. Yeah, I appreciate the work that's gone into this. I think it's in really good shape. I did, there's just really one issue that stood out to me, which I, you know, is a point I raised previously. And it's, it has, it emerges two places in the bill. The first time on page six in what's number five. Yes. So the paragraph, analyze current data collection definitions, practice use in Vermont from misconduct and for disciplinary actions, results, students exclusion and develop standard definitions and practices. So point I made previously, I think this is problematic for Vermont to develop its own definitions. You know, part of, certainly part of the rationale, the findings that are bringing this policy concern forward is this idea that we have national data and perhaps we don't have sufficient Vermont data. If we're going to collect data from districts and I think this is a worthy area to collect data, we need to ensure that it conforms with national data standards so that we can draw those valid comparisons to Vermont trends and other states. But just on a practical side, it becomes problematic for us to implement if we're creating our own data definitions in Vermont when our data model that we've been trying to promulgate is in alignment with the common education data store, the SEDS standard, the national data definitions or a dictionary, which in my view is broad and comprehensive and I would just suggest that we not invent our own data definitions but seek to use ones that are already available in the large lexicon of data definitions on the national level. Is there anything problematic about that? In other words, just thinking aloud, is there a point, Mr. Secretary, where we would not agree with the definition in some way or it would just, it would really kind of pigeonhole us or put us back to kind of where we're trying to evolve out of? Yeah, I think firstly it becomes, as I mentioned, I think it becomes problematic to draw a national comparison. So from a policy perspective, we're interested in, well, what is Vermont's context relative to the national or the other context from other states, which once again, as I read, is part of the rationale for promoting this is that we've observed some national trends that are disturbing and we want to understand to what extent those trends exist in Vermont and therefore we wanna collect some data to do that. To do that apples to apples comparison, we should be using the same data terms. Okay. And then secondly, and this is where I sort of put on my secretary hat from defending the capacity of the agency, it becomes really problematic for us to interject some new data definitions that are not in that broader sort of dictionary, if you will, of data elements. It just, it becomes a multiplier of complexity as we seek to automate data collection from school districts. You know, we're gonna be constantly saying, oh, this is a Vermont subset that doesn't necessarily exist in a larger model, as opposed to saying, here's the larger model and then we can pick the elements from that that we want to see included in a specific Vermont collection. That makes it a lot easier for us to manage over time. Senator Persley. Thank you. I think it's a point well taken, but and I wonder if just, instead of using the word develop, we said adopt. We don't have as necessary in there. So it's like, you could say it's not necessary to develop, but instead just saying and adopt standard definitions and practices, does that? Yeah, it could be. I mean, it's, it does emerge two places in the bill. I was gonna point out and also is in the on page eight. So it does get to this in page eight at the bottom on line 13. Secretary of the state board shall incorporate the task force standard definitions. So, and to the senator's point, the task force adopted definitions or recommended definitions. You know, and I would almost suggest something like the data elements as opposed to definitions. So the idea is not that the task force is going to define or create new standards of data, but they might select some from the dictionary that we're not collecting data on. I think that would be more appropriate or just data, you know, show them corporate test versus recommended data, you know, and then we could pull from the elements to do that, but it's problematic, I think, to engage in defining new data elements. That is a sense in a person. Yeah, I mean, yeah, I'm okay with that. And Jim, do you have enough information there to make that edit? I think I do, yeah. Would we keep the word practices? Our Secretary of Friends, are you also worried about practices? No, I think practices is a term of art. I mean, that could include a wide range of activities. I'm not, that doesn't really have implications either on a comparative state by state basis, because, you know, for example, restorative practices is not necessarily so narrowly defined from state to state that it would cause a problem with throwing that comparison. And similarly, there's no standard, when we get into the practical aspect of collecting data, it's not gonna be limiting or impact our capacity. Okay. Anything else, Secretary? No, I think that was really the one piece that stood out for me. I have read through the draft. I think, you know, to your conversation about clarity, just getting tighter on what you'd like me to do or the Secretary to do relative to balanced representation would be good to get some clarity on, but, you know, the only, the piece that stood out for me was that data definition part. I think that's really the only suggestion I had. Anything else, Committee? We're gonna loop back to make sure, touch base with our co-sponsors of this and make sure they're comfortable and talk to a few caucus members and pro tem and perhaps have another conversation and then hopefully move it forward. Mr. Secretary, while we have you here, I just wanted to give you a heads up and we have been, and I know you have been looking at, you know, what we might be doing for students this summer around everything from mental health issues or to just getting students out to sort of bringing them back into the academic fold, some perhaps addressing some academic deficits and we're hoping if possible, we might have you back in Tuesday to talk with us a little bit about the agency's plan or thoughts and what we have, I will email you as well, save you the time of watching yesterday's testimony, just some of the things that we pulled out of having heard from, you know, for lack of a better expression, you know, the usual suspects, NEA, and I know this group has also been in conversation with you, but I didn't want to sort of catch you off guard in any way that, you know, we've been having these kinds of conversations as I think you're aware of. Yeah, no, I mean, next week would be great. I think it's perfect timing for us. We've been, we have been working a lot with stakeholders to conceptualize this. I think I might have mentioned previously, it's been somewhat challenging at the national level to do this work because there's not many states ready for that conversation. Many states are still very much in thinking about, I would say some are even contemplating reopening their schools. You'll hear that a lot in the national media. But we've been sort of pushing the conversation along. There's a number of states have now joined in, maybe four or five states, but we're with our conditions in the state, I think we're ready to have that conversation, not sure, you know, what the timelines would be, but the conceptualization of it is important. And part of the strategy is to do that planning now, specifically so we could leverage summer and, you know, not necessarily just wait till the fall to begin the conversation, to really take advantage of the opportunity to have that conversation now. So we've been pulling together the threads of the conversation and I've reached a sort of, I think a coherence to it that we'd love to share with you next week. That'd be great. And leveraging the summer is a great way to put it. Just terrific. Senator Tarenzini. Senator Campion, you can tell me it's not very time to talk about it, but since we're in S16, I, I wanted to go back to a comment I made the other day, if you'd allow. And Senator Perchlich, I believe, responded to my question, but maybe it's how I'm reading it or interpreting it or thinking about the creation of this task force. But I'm still hung up on the part that says that in conjunction with the agency education, make recommendations to end suspensions and expulsions for all, but the most serious student behaviors. I sort of feel like, I don't know how to word it, we're telling, if we're telling the committee, what to, how to recommend it and what to, how to think already, then why have the committee and be, why don't, if there's folks on the committee that feel that we should get rid of expulsions and detent, or suspensions, then why don't we just enact that rather than including it in a task study where we're telling them how to think and how to proceed. Does that make sense? So please correct me if I'm getting this wrong, but you're asking, does it make sense just to pass a law that says, hey, you know, we've got enough research here, let's move away from this, rather than create a task force that, you know, might, may or may not get to basically where we want to be on these issues. Well, it's sort of like, if I was asked to sit on the task force and you know, you want my opinion because I'm bringing an expertise to the committee and then I look at, oh, well, the Senate Ed committee already decided for me that I need to be in support of dissolving suspensions. I sort of don't think as a member of that committee that's gonna be formed, you have the freedom of thought at that point. I see what you're saying. So that's what I keep getting hung up on. It's on page four and page five, it's both referred to and so, and maybe I missed it the first time, but somehow I feel like that sort of made its way into this bill as it evolved. I don't remember being in the original draft that we looked at. So it's a great question. I can take a look at the underlying bill unless Jim, you may already be ahead of me looking to see if it was in the underlying bill. And Senator Perch, like I see your hand is up, it was not in the underlying bill. I do not think it was in the Senator Sears' bill, but it was in the language that Secretary of French provided. Right, right forward, yeah. I'd be interested to hear what the Secretary feels, does he feel like it's settled that expulsions and suspensions out of school are, you know, or, you know, is that settled in the educational community that it's not helpful and that we need to move to how to implement it or does he think more discussion is needed on that question? Yeah, if I could, we didn't introduce the sort of the, I would say the findings that are in this final version that they're not unfamiliar to me. So I think, you know, to try to draw the connection to the other Senator's comment, there is some national consensus that exclusionary discipline processes proportionately disaffect students of minority populations and so forth. So it's, there's pretty strong data on that as part of the national trend. And so therefore we should endeavor to examine to what extent that's happening in Vermont and endeavor also to see what we could do to minimize the use of such practices just based on what we already know of the national patterns. So that's sort of the context I think for saying that. So in my perspective, I think it's important to have broader engagement and conversation about these topics and to what extent those patterns exist in Vermont and also from a practical standpoint, then examine to what extent the more exclusionary practices could be limited. So I think that's sort of the trend that we should examine. It comes from a national approach. It needs to be informed by Vermont data and Vermont perspective based on the practical aspects of our diverse education delivery system. So I think that's how I would draw the sort of thread the needle between the previous Senator's comment and the rationale for the bill. Yeah, I appreciate that, Commissioner French. I guess I want to make clear if there's disproportionate suspensions or biases here, it absolutely needs to stop. It can't be accepted. But I guess it's another question for me is then why don't we just come forward with something very simple and say, those in favor of ending suspension, let's just make it another bill. I mean, it just seemed like this is a study that handles a lot of things. And now we're telling a committee how to think in one way with the intentions of ending suspensions and expulsion. I'm probably splitting hairs here. I won't take any more of the committee's time, but it just seems like to me it's sort of a sticking point. So I'll move on though. Thank you, Senator. No, I'm glad you're raising it. I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I feel like in a way the goal of the commission as sometimes we do with other commissions, we do give some general guidance and direction that we've looked at research, we've analyzed a number of things and now we wanna move in a particular direction. I'm just thinking of things we've done in natural resources, climate, education, health and welfare, here's the research. This is now the direction we're hoping to move in. That being said, I do feel like there's a piece of this that still recognizes that there are certain behaviors, certain experiences that a teacher might witness, be a part of that a student might exhibit that a suspension or expulsion might be necessary and how do we work with that student going forward? So that's a little bit where I'm at. I'm not sure if that's helpful, Senator Taranzini. Well, I appreciate the comments and maybe it's just the way I'm interpreting it, but I've served on panels and boards before and I've just never been told sort of, this is how I need to think as a board member or committee member of this. And I just feel like you're gonna pick 15 or 20 people to sit on here and hopefully you think like us and you believe that we should gear to suspensions for X amount of reasons. So anyways, like I said, I appreciate the time of the committee and I know that we have... Senator Hooker, did you wanna add something to this? No, actually I wanted to go back to summer and talk about what we may be doing. And this morning, Secretary French, the chair and I met with the money committee people and the house and people and talked about some of the things that would need to be done to reach out to what yesterday people referred to as the ghost students who haven't shown up. And my question was related to attendance and how attendance has been kept during the pandemic and do you have data that shows where the kids are going to school and where they're not? And would that be easily accessible so that that could inform the work that needs to be done for summer programs? Yeah, we don't, if you were to ask me to produce a report for your use, I would not be able to do that very easily at this point. We do collect essentially at the state level attendance data on an annual basis. We have implemented a monthly data collection, which I'd be happy to share the results with you on a general level once a month, we ask school districts to indicate the number of their students that are either an in-person hybrid or remote. But on the other hand, the school districts have their granular data necessary for the planning for their specific circumstances so they have a good sense of the need. And just to foreshadow a bit for next week if we come in and testify on this because I would also like to include our deputy secretary who's been leading a lot of this up, Heather Boucher. It's important that I think in broad sense what we're thinking to do is to point districts towards sort of a triage disposition in the spring to sort of listen and find out what are the issues in their districts? And that's, we have in a very directive way an idea of how to do that. And then secondly to create plans and then to move to implementation this spring which would include the use of summer programming as opposed again to waiting to the fall. But we also know there's going to be a need to transition to the summer and part of that in schools is a celebratory disposition. So people are gonna be interested in saying, oh, we've gotten through the winter and let's land and the school year on a positive note. We also know that our systems have been operating nonstop especially issues like food service programs have been operating nonstop since last March. So there's going to be need to be some downtime in the summer as well. But the point I'd make is that we have an opportunity to do the planning which would lead to some prioritization and then districts using their data to develop specific district level plans of how to intervene because we're not gonna find I'm pretty sure that all students have been affected the same in all districts. So districts are gonna have to come up with specific approaches. There are gonna be some general trends that are gonna require some state response and truancy in our attendance is one of them. And specifically we've already had you'll see in our planning it's one of the domains we're going to have to come up with a more a broad approach to that issue. We qualified as engagement issues with students. You use the term of go students but our current truancy levers, if you will are gonna be woefully inadequate to address that issue. And really you can see truancy in a pandemic sort of being tip of the iceberg of a lot of other issues that are going on with students and their families. So we're gonna have to organize state government services as well between DCF mental health and the agency of education. And we're gonna, I think that'll be a common theme in every region, but we're gonna have to figure that out. We currently truancy is organized on a regional basis through the state's attorneys in each region but we're gonna have different patterns in each region. So then anyway, that's sort of the broad brush what we're looking at. I think summer is important but it's sort of a conclusion from an analysis that needs to occur first and we'll get districts there but we want them to go into that planning well informed about what their priorities are. The other key thing is that the spring sometime around in April is when they start formulating their grant strategies for the consolidated federal program grants. These are like the title grants title one title two which are traditionally the major funding systems that support summer school. So they're gonna have to come up with their plans for those grant funds and additional to their ESSER grant funds and so forth that have been provided as a result of the COVID emergency. So it's important that districts engage in some planning process and set priorities that can inform and focus, help to focus their resources and leverage summer to this maximum potential. Thank you. Great and we'll continue this conversation next week.