 Hello and welcome. This is the Education Committee in the Vermont House of Representatives. It is Friday, February 5th, and we are continuing our conversation on H-101, an act relating to the implementation of Act 173 by providing grant funding to bill systems-driven sustainable literacy support for students with measurable outcomes. So the bill that we have before us is our working document, and we are really interested in hearing from you. So let's start with Mike Lamarton, and if you could introduce yourself. Thanks for having me. I'm Mikaela Martin. I am a co-director of school transformation in central Vermont supervised reading, and I'm here with my colleague Andrea Watson, who's also a co-director of school transformation. We work in partnership to build systems within schools around academics and social emotional with my 12th year in this position. Central Vermont was recently merged, a merged school district with the Orange North and Washington South. So we are the third year into our merger. Great. I would just add that our job titles alone, I think tell a little bit of the story from what was Orange North and now the merged central Vermont Supervisory Union, and that Mikaela would be more what you would consider the typical curriculum director in an SU, and my lens is more on the special services, special education side of things. I'm also here in my capacity as the president elect for Vermont council of special ed administrators, but again thank you for having us, and Mikaela and I submitted some written testimony regarding the bill, and we thought that today it might be most helpful for us to tell a little bit of the story, the story that started before I came. This is my fourth year. In CVSU and Mikaela and the team started to work well before I got here and I've been able to reap the benefits and just continue to help support the efforts, in particular with the merger that's required, some revisiting of the practices and re-looking at what was done and what made it so effective. So I think probably it makes the most sense for Mikaela to start just by talking a little bit about the history and the story and where we are and then we can fill in that and answer any questions that you have. Thank you. So when we came to work in 2014, it was really about supporting our multi-tiered system of support for academics. So literacy was an area of need that we had and what we discovered through this process is there's a couple things that we wanted to highlight that are critical to our success, one being it was part of a system. It wasn't just another initiative, so when we looked at our schools in 2014 they were failing schools and we had a huge over-identification for special education in the area of reading. So when we peel back the layers, what we realized is there were some key components missing. We lacked teacher expertise in teaching reading and we also knew that the major driver of any change initiative had to be the building principal and there needed to be a vision coming out of our central office that we were committed to. So those were two key components along with building a system that was rooted in data and accountability. So that's where we began. We thought it was very critical to start at our pre-K2 level and that's where we emphasized our professional development. So our professional development was rooted in research as well as the focus on foundational skills and knowledge for our classroom teachers and using a common approach for both our classroom universal instructions, what we call it, as well as alignment with our targeted intensive services so that the language was similar. Because we had a huge silo problem between general education and special education and we were investing a lot of money into one person being an interventionist through our title funds. So we flipped it and said, well, what if we focus our professional development on the classroom teacher while building their expertise for their classroom instruction as well as making them also an interventionist? So that model of building expertise at the building level within a system rooted in collaboration and using data as a way to monitor our progress transformed our schools. So that's where we want to emphasize this idea. We applaud you for the focus on reading, but we also emphasize this idea. It has to be part of a system that everyone is invested in and we were very fortunate to have classroom teachers willing to take on the role of an interventionist as well as their classroom. But we took a lot off their plates because we also created a model where they only would have to teach one or two content areas. So while building a strong social emotional system, we also built an academic system really primarily investing on the universal classroom instruction because we know that if we have highly effective classroom instruction at the universal level, then 80 percent of our students should be meeting expectations, especially at pre-K. Yeah, so what I would add to that that I think is unique about the work and the focus unique for me and my experience across working across a few different SUs in the state is this, as Michaela said, a strong leadership team. So the central office with the vision and the support and building principles who all bought into the approach. And this, as Michaela said, was larger than literacy. But if we just focus for this conversation on the, in particular, the K2 foundational literacy, that there was a universal curriculum universal approach and that in terms of equity for students and in particular in this SU, we serve a lot of children in poverty. So creating equity for them across the schools where there was a common approach to literacy instruction that is rooted in scientific data. All classroom teachers are trained and they're deeply trained. So Blanche and Jana are here. They'll heal from them later, but they are the folks that provided that training for us. And then the deeper work that special educators or interventionists might do is also built on that same foundation. So children who are struggling are not learning something different in their special education services from their Gen Ed classroom. The other thing that we wanted to emphasize, it wasn't in the written testimony, but I'm sure you're interested in. So what did that mean? What are the outcomes? And we're continuing to work on this, right? That's the other piece is that it's a never ending, right? We're always looking at where are we and what do we need to continue to do to support our teachers in our system? But I think remarkably over the past several years, the referrals for special education evaluations in particular at that early grade level have dramatically reduced. So this in conjunction with 173 is sort of like CVSU jumped on the bandwagon before 173 and said, we really don't care about funding. We want to put the most struggling students with the most qualified teacher to ensure that they grow and we're not going to operate under a wait to fail model. That special education has sort of perpetuated. So by intervening as soon as they recognize that kids are struggling with a highly qualified teacher, the need for referrals to special ed have gone down dramatically. I believe of course this year is a little tricky for us to assess. But in the previous years, in one elementary school in particular, we had as few as two initial referrals for special education in that school. So kids' needs are being met early without waiting for them to fail. And that's again the result of flexibility with service provision, data driven decisions, monitor careful monitoring of student progress, understanding when kids are struggling that we might need to do some assessment to learn more about how they're processing. But that wouldn't doesn't need to go through the full special ed evaluation. We saw dramatic improvement in state and local testing scores for children in particular at grade three. Their literacy skills dramatic, dramatic growth that has sustained over time. And then again, as we said, a more equitable experience for all students. Sounds like you're describing the model that at 173 is trying to implement related to the DMG report of building the the expertise in the general in the tier one programs, getting rid of the three nice ladies that taught reading differently to you. And as we used to refer to it, and setting in place the leadership to make it sustainable. That's what I'm hearing. As you look at our bill, the bill as it currently stands, we are looking to expand that to other areas using some of the federal funds that are flowing into the state to start to get some of these groups that aren't as far ahead with their MTSS implementation, that still are using reading programs that that really don't align with what we know about reading instruction today. Do you have any recommendations on the bill? If you had a chance to take a look at it, recommendations for the committee as we as we continue to work on this bill? And would you agree with the idea? I think we're all looking at multiple plans to support how we move forward post COVID. I think that if there's ways to tie it into the continuous improvement plan process, or the COVID recovery process, because I think that I think we're all initiative fatigue right now, especially around what we've experienced this year. And I think if there should be some connection to either the MTSS division at the agency, so that people aren't seeing as a one other thing we have to do or maybe apply for, I think it fits nicely the structure with what how we approach continuous improvement through that MTSS lens. I think it's critical that those five components are part of the plan. That's how we approach any initiative is through the five components of MTSS. It doesn't go away. It's like not another thing that we do. So it's critical. It's tied to that. You have flexibility around how you approach as long as it's the evidence-based approach of it, not naming something specific, because I think people have different needs based upon where they live or their communities itself. We chose a particular approach because that's what we felt was in the best interest of our students and the needs of our teachers. So we did a lot of analysis around what are the needs of our kids and our teachers too, because the teachers were critical to the success. If they were not feeling confident in what we were providing, they were not going to go forward with it. So our approach really has built confidence with our teachers and they don't feel overwhelmed. They feel like they're having a huge impact on students. This committee will shy away from actually implementing curriculum. That's not something that's within our purview and we're quite conscious of that. Would it help if the agency had a list of programs that would be helpful? I think the more resources for SUs from the agency would really be beneficial, because I don't think there's enough professional development providers within the state to even think about a large-scale implementation. I worry about that. We used to have a professional development agency, an ESA LAPTA, that's now gone. So I think we're lacking in providers for professional development. I'll be honest with you. I know that if I have new teachers coming on board, I've got to get my teachers on the list early for PD, because when we hire people, we have to train them. That's just our reality. But those slots fail quickly because everyone has the same needs. And I think there's going to be a tremendous need coming off COVID around academic areas and social emotional. And how do we get enough vendors to help provide that support? That was, I think, when we reviewed the bill. And again, definitely applaud the focus, the attention, and the recognition that it requires financial support in order to fulfill the recommendations of the DMG and the hope for Act 173 that districts do need some financial support. There is a little bit of concern that this be seen again as something in isolation that's not connected to a larger effort and the recognition of just how long this change process can be and will take. And that the two-year cycle isn't going to be enough. And I was a little concerned with the limited scope in that some districts who will jump on and benefit and others where there's still maybe not enough incentive or help. So we thought, right, we've got close to a million dollars here. How could that be used maybe from the agency level to help support all districts? Just some just some wonderings around that. As Michaela pointed out, I mean, teacher training is a critical component. Teachers aren't coming out of their prep programs prepared. They don't they don't have the knowledge or the skills to teach children how to read. And that's true for special educators as well. We have to train everybody that comes through our door. So that's that's a huge investment. One of the parts of this is also to create the idea of regional groups getting together to access professional development. We certainly heard from Nate Levinson of DMG, he can he can provide it to several to the same thing with several districts at the same time, thereby kind of creating a whole regional training, as opposed to just one small school district. Which for me starts to create the idea of it's a statewide implementation when those teachers are moving around, they're moving around with the same context. Yeah, no, we definitely felt like that was a smart approach. I mean, we try to do that as much as we can with our you know regional partners already, but yeah, I think that's very. Do you recommend that there be some prioritization as to who gets the grants that the agency can select rather than maybe taking the the one who has the grant writer in the district? I think there's has to be some kind of readiness. For implementation, I think we'll start the strong leadership is key. And then and then how willing already are they or what do you need to do to get people ready? I think we were fortunate that we had a population of teachers who were eager to do this this model. And we had a superintendent who had a vision and so we were supported through the whole through the whole thing. And I think leveraging things like your grant funding to teachers like their professional development funds. So because we were able to utilize our title funds to pay for this, it made them more attractive to teachers. And that we were just focused on one initiative. So that was the only thing they needed to concentrate on that year when they took the training and then they had embedded coaching. We weren't asking them to focus on other things. So they were able to really be intentional about their professional development. And we're much more open to feedback because of that. So I think it's understanding the stress of the job and then understanding what they need professionally and supporting them the whole way through the process. Thank you. We actually heard from Levinson as well that he said that the leadership and interest coming from the district is critical. Representative Brady. I think we're going to get at this a bit later in the committee today, but where is the high quality professional development on literacy coming from? I know part of the answer is certainly going to be Stern Center, but what are the other institutions, trainers, places where you are tapping into particularly Vermont resources? The Stern Center was our professional development provider and continues to be. We also utilize, especially in special education topics, some related to literacy, the Vermont Higher Ed Collaborative. And then there are a couple of private providers that we use in particular training related to literacy. From my lens, looking at children who have present with characteristics of dyslexia. So we really want to make sure that in particular special educators are deeply trained in understanding the cognitive profile of those learners and the intervention that again sort of marries well with what kids are getting in the Gen Ed classroom but then takes it to a deeper level and with a lens of understanding that particular population. We also try really hard to build internal capacity. Because we want to sustain the initiative, so it's important that we're empowering teachers to continue with their professional development so they can then become the trainer. So that's part of our goal. We approach it as one PD investment and then how do we continue to build that within our own supervisor union? And isn't that going to be the thing that's going to keep it going? Yes, teacher investment is the key to anything. And I think, you know, building principles come and go and when we just lost an incredible principle, but we had an internal plan and it continues to be great because the teachers are now invested in the success of the school, not just about central office or a principal. Now it's become part of the culture, so it's sustainable because they really believe in what they see. And we celebrate small wins and big wins and I think that's really important. But the idea of the teacher investment is what has really carried the success of this initiative. We're now in year seven. So that's really a great indicator for us that we are able to sustain beyond the building leader and the building leader that came in understands the importance of the initiative. How long did it take you and how much did it cost? I need to tally up how much it cost us. It was as well over $100,000, but I would caveat by saying any CAN program that you buy is going to be that as well. And we had that experience when I arrived 12 years ago that they had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a CAN-BASIL program and it didn't do anything. So I just said, well, we're going to invest in teachers. That's what we're going to because I really believe in the MTSS model and I think that universal instruction is going to get us far and that was where we invested. Because this is not enough interventionist or special educators to catch everybody up. So we just approached it before the DMG report and that really confirmed our work that the investment in teachers has benefited all kids. And it's also tripled our capacity to provide intervention without adding money to our budget. So fiscally, we had to be really responsible to our communities. And this model helped us not add personnel, but maximize personnel. Representative Conlon. Thanks very much. It is always great to hear how something unfolds in the real world and on the ground and with the people who are actually doing it. So thanks a lot for your testimony regarding that. I have two questions. One is you had to join cultures when you merged and how that, how you sort of brought one to the other. And then the other one is just, you know, you took this on at a time, at a normal time. And our hope is that there will be equal enthusiasm this fall for a similar thing. But there's a lot going on with COVID recovery. And I'd like your thoughts on if you think it can be pulled off this fall as well. So culture change as you merged and then whether COVID could derail attempts to sort of get this kind of model into place. I think that the culture change is always challenging. I think part of it was coming together to reestablish outcomes for kids. So that was some of the early work so that we were clear about what we wanted students to know and be able to do. So that from an SU perspective, that when we merged, we had to, you know, join our documents and then create new ones so to get teacher investment. But the training was, they were able to share experiences from one side to the other. And then teachers were really excited to learn more about it. So it was a lot of collaboration and it eventually followed the same path. So the merger helped us strengthen the numbers of our resources but also provide support for teachers who were just new at it. So now we've got an internal support system through the merger. And then can we do this in COVID? Yeah, I mean I think professional development providers have gotten really creative about online learning. So some of our teachers were trained through virtual and we have embedded coaching still happening within the school. So it did, COVID didn't prevent us from moving forward. So when we had new teachers hired, they went to the training last summer and the internal coaches because it's a contracted service are able to be in our school. So I don't think it can, it will get in the way of a professional development plan. I meant more just in terms of people's capacity to sort of take it on. Yeah, I think it's that readiness piece. So I think where can your teachers take on one more thing? I think it's dependent on the school. You know, we're really mindful of that as we plan for next year because I do think the social emotional needs of both adults and kids are going to be still something that we need to focus on. So yeah that's a great, it's, to be mindful of that is absolutely essential. But I think like we've said earlier tying it to and you have in your bill tying it to the DMG Act 173 and MTSS and in particular MTSS so that it's not seen as one more thing but it's more of support for the work that that's already happening. And I mean earlier today, Michaela and I were on a call with our school psychologist, you know, we're just trying to anticipate the needs of our data teams of our, you know, as kids are returning to school having lost so much time and parents who are feeling pretty anxious about that, you know, how do we respond? So I think, yes, we have to be mindful of all the needs that are coming post COVID and maybe it's more critical now than ever that that we focus efforts around the literacy needs of our kids. This is also where we have federal funds coming in to use. Yeah, I mean schools are going to be inundated with funds, right? So it's and then it's going to really be helping figure out how do you prioritize and create systems that will sustain once the money is gone. So we share that title one funds are not being used. Are you also sending title one funds back? This was a kind of a sad thing to hear that we're already sending federal dollars back. I think the title one funding, it gets one of the things that we were trying not to do through our budgetary lenses, continue to add positions that we couldn't sustain. So I think it's an interesting problem to have, which we do, because we don't need as much support. So when you don't need as much support, it's we don't want to continuing add things that we locally couldn't sustain if federal funds went away. So it's been a weird time to do that. You know, I think it's getting creative about how you use it through your summer programming after school programming for tutoring and getting materials for teachers and professional development. I've leveraged title one funds a lot for professional development because we have our internal systems for intervention. So we don't want to use it for personnel if it's just another add on. I think too is the culture of sending a student away is something that we've broken is that it's our problem. We've gone from a me culture to a weak culture so that everyone is invested in the success of kids. And that's because we've really emphasized the classroom teacher being collaborative with a special educator or an interventionist. So that's the we don't have one person designated for intervention because we believe that classroom teachers teaching and also providing intervention is the best support for kids and it also keeps them within the classroom setting. So we don't have those positions designated as 1.0 interventionist parts. Are there questions? Comments? Okay, so we are trying to not invent something new. We're trying to use some of the structures that we have in this bill and appreciate your input, appreciate hearing that here is an example of success. I'm afraid I was distracted a minute when you were talking about the merger in terms of bringing the folks together. That are they all now at this point using the same? Yeah, and same. So that was your process. It was definitely a process and there was maybe a little of kicking and screaming but I think once like Michaela said the resources are expanded and when we have non-negotiables you know there are criteria that from Central Office we expect that how building operate but we also each building and their population is unique so there's autonomy as well for how they operate within sort of the system that says you know these are the things that must be in place data driven decisions you know those the universal curriculum those kinds of things. And you are not a forced merger? No. Were you an early merger? Yeah, it feels so long ago because it was such a long process. So we merged in 2018 so it was you know I think in the in the middle probably we weren't the first but we were one in the middle and it was it was a very positive merger as far as the three six communities come together. And here you are with rising outcomes? Yes. When we read the DMG it was like yeah that's what we do and we learned a lot from that as well and and the work doesn't end but it's the system that the leadership team and the systems of support are what are critical and then the teacher professional development and and again what I think is unique here is the content specialty model that goes down to grade one so we have you know in classroom teachers deep training in both literacy and math because they're focused on one of those subject areas and the the universal approach that is that's built on science right there that the teacher is the teaching manual right there is not a curriculum a canned program that that they deliver they possess the knowledge that then they're able to individualize that with kids depending on what they what the student needs and you have you have as part of your comprehensive assessment you yet you have screening currently yes and you have benchmark assessments so you already with the trained staff can identify a student who's struggling because of a certain dyslexia or other you know cognitive weaknesses you can identify you you can identify what seems to be holding this this child back and what to do about it right apply the right method continued work is really looking at what I consider talk about like tipping points at what point after we've been delivering intervention and students aren't making the progress we expect at what point you know at that point then what targeted assessments are we doing to get a better understanding of why they're struggling why they aren't making progress and then adjusting and sometimes that's meant we're going to adjust the provider we're going to we're going to leave this person and go to this person because we you know we know that they have the skill set that's necessary right so move up the tier ladder okay um excuse me this is um we've needed a little good news so I think that committee is happy to hear a little good news um excuse me also that seems to be aligning with the recommendations of dmg which this committee has taken a great interest in um with the census-based funding block grants around the corner should be able to give you the flexibility um in your funding to to implement the model that you're that you're doing we do have a waiting study that we're looking at um and and we're working on how we're going to be working with that guess is what I would say um some some thoughtful implementation great and happy to hear from you on that I think with that I'm going to give the committee a break um and we have the people in the room so it's going to be Blanche Podaysky and Jenna Osmond right so um um and then we have um superintendent uh Libby Bone Steel and the um the superintendent's association they cannot come until three um shall we shall we just come back at one everybody sound good everybody go take a little walk thank you for the opportunity to share our story thank you we appreciate it so we're gonna go off and we'll we'll just put up our we'll stop here and um