 Welcome, this is Tuesday, April 13th. This is the Education Committee and the Vermont House of Representatives. And we are looking at today, we are looking at S16, an act relating to the creation of the task force on school exclusionary discipline reform. And we have an update that we want to take a look at. And our lead counsel, Mr. Jim Damarade, could walk us through that. That would be a quick, yeah. Let me just pull this up. Okay, so for the record, Jim Damarade, lead counsel, we are walking through a little bit bigger on draft 1.1 of your draft amendment to S16. S16, which deals with the task force on school exclusionary discipline reform. What is changed from the underlying bill, it is highlighted in yellow. So this scrolls through until we see yellow. So here we are on section two. We have a change in the name of the task force. It's now named task force on equitable and inclusive school environments. And then the next change is on membership. The underlying bill, you may recall, had the secretary appointing 20 members of this task force among various categories, like educators, administrators, first categories of people. This actually names the members of the task force. So we have 19 members. You have the secretary of education, commissioner of mental health, and then the V's. And all of these are, or it doesn't need. So you have the B's coming down to here, H. And then you have one member appointed by the Legal Aid Disability Law Project, one member appointed by the Vermont Family Network, one member appointed by BEST, one member appointed by the National Center on Restorations and Development. One member appointed by the National Center on Restorative Justice at the Vermont Law School. Two teachers appointed by the Vermont NEA. One member appointed by the ACLU of Vermont. One member of the Therapeut School appointed by the Vermont Independent Schools Association. One school counselor appointed by the Vermont School Counselor Association. And two high school students appointed by the Vermont Principles Association. The membership shall be racially diverse. And then in terms of powers and duties, they're basically the same. It's been changed in online 10. So it's to review current behavioral supports and in school services. So the current behavioral supports and was added. Going down to D, we have a new duty, which is to review school professional development programs and make recommendations on how educator practices such as positive behavioral interventions and support, trauma-informed practices and restorative practices and related training for these practices can increase educators' awareness of students' social, emotional needs in a manner to reduce behaviors that lead to possible out-of-school disciplinary measures. And then we have conforming changes, conforming changes, conforming changes, conforming change. And then down to the next section, the appropriation has been reduced from about 15,000 to 8,000 because your membership has been defined and the number of the members are the Vs and the secretary who don't receive compensation. And then we just have conforming changes here. And here on section six, earlier it had read that a student involved in public school who is, I think was in the eighth grade or under, now it's eight years of age, under eight years of age, shall not be suspended or expelled from the school, provide however that the school may suspend or expel if the student poses a threat of harm or danger to others in the school. So it's worth the addition of suspended here as far as its function. And this is unchanged. The effective date is unchanged, but the title of the act would change to the task force on equitable inclusive school environments. And that is it. Thank you. I know we have some people in here. I'd like to hear from you. I see just a careless is here from the agency and Wendy Geller and David Kelly are here and looking for your response. I don't know who wants to speak. Thank you so much chair web. This is Wendy Giller. I will turn my video on in just a second. I just have sold in here with me at the moment. He's just away from his nap. So sorry about that everybody. I think he just couldn't wait to see everybody again. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The education committee. We accept children. Thank you. So I, uh, we, we took your, um, your, your, uh, comment back of last time where we kind of walked you through all the materials that are on the web. Um, you had mentioned that it would be helpful to, um, really just dig into the bill. So we did try to do that this time. Um, I would drive this time. And, uh, Oh, it says, uh, the host is disabled participant screen sharing. Um, could I, could I please have permission to. You got it. You got it now. Okay. Thank you. Um, bear with me just one moment. While I pull this up. Okay. Can everybody see my screen here? Yes. Okay. So this is the testimony that was, um, just submitted. So we're just going to walk through this here. Um, let me just scroll this down because this is really the, um, Uh, most, uh, specific, uh, section. So I figured we could just walk through this here together. Um, we put together a table. Uh, I love tables. Um, and, um, thank you very much to director to care, the careless for all the order and, um, logic that she, uh, applied to this. I was extremely critical to our ability to put this together. Free wall. Um, so we, we do have a couple of factual clarifications that we thought would be helpful as you go through this markup and then some recommendations for consideration. Uh, so you just read the table left to right. Um, so there's a, just a hot link to the, to the drafted language in case that's helpful for folks to have everything that is, um, you know, it's just connected in one document. Uh, so this is section one. Um, so, um, I'm going to, um, I'm going to go through the actual clarification. Uh, we, you know, as you all saw last time, uh, discipline data are reported publicly through the snapshot and the VED. Uh, so we have some recommended language here for your consideration. Um, in that they are made available annually. Um, and then from seven a, uh, it's really just a, uh, another clarification. Uh, for where those data live on the web already. Um, and then we have a, uh, we have a, uh, we have a language here in that it notes the two places where, where those data live. Um, and then it specifies the ways in which those data are reported. Uh, there is another, and I realized we're kind of cut between these two. Uh, pages here, but, um, we have them be. And, uh, we start, uh, that column here, the annual snapshot reports disciplinary exclusions as one of the, um, the, um, the indicator reflects the amount of school days missed as a result of out of school suspensions relative to the number of students enrolled during the school year selected. Um, and just a note about this language. This is actually how it reads on the annual snapshot itself for consistency sake. Um, and then there's some suggested language here that you could consider. Okay. So B says that it's not readily available and you've got information that it actually is. Is that right? Yeah. And this is a live link. I realized that, you know, it won't be live in the legislation itself, but yeah, I, I just appreciate having things in one place. So we figured you, you might too. So do we. Um, Representative Austin wait one question. I just want to clarify one thing, Dr. Geller. Um, I believe it was, uh, I believe it was you that gave us this testimony, uh, that you mentioned earlier that. It is some data that cannot be presented publicly, but that districts have access to it. Yes, ma'am. And so. In a sense, it's true that not all data, uh, the public has access to. Um, I don't know if there needs to be a rationale for that or some explanation as to why that is. Um, we do have some of the suggested language for your consideration around, um, to the extent, uh, Let's see, let me just scroll to it because it'll be easier if we can all just see it. Um, Let me see here. There is some language around, um, to the extent that, uh, Uh, as permissible under existing reporting and collecting rules and procedures. Um, that's a reference to both the rules and procedures around how, how we are, um, Directed to collect and manage these data as well as store these data. Um, and, and then to share these data. So, uh, that's, that's really a reference to the family, uh, Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Perfect. Right. That. So is that helpful or do you feel like that really needs. That's helpful. And I probably should have waited to the end of your explanation, your presentation to ask. I'll wait until this. No problem. No problem at all. Representative Brady. Is this section. Yeah, thank you. So we're on. I've been through the bell with a fine tooth comb. So I'm trying to keep track really carefully of what we're looking at here. Sure. So it says, um, so you're, you're in the findings here and that you do have this discipline data. And so then if I open the Vermont education dashboard. And want to look at some of that data. I just want to make sure I'm not missing something when I put in say. A fifth grade. Free and reduced lunch. I get measures on, um, it doesn't tell me numbers. It gives me the, uh, where we are. Um, I don't know, let me pull it up in front of you again. Am I looking at the wrong thing? I don't see actual numbers of students. I see a, uh, a sort of score on our proficiency towards that. Now the link. The snapshot. Yeah. Yes. Um, so all of the data behind the snapshot are exportable. Um, that was the Excel file that, uh, I'm not sure if you're familiar with that. Um, I'm not sure if you're familiar with that. Uh, chief Kelly, uh, Dave Kelly, you're here with me today. My research and that section chief. That was the file that he walked everybody through. Um, the, the data that are in the snapshot, obviously for public consumption do have to also have suppression procedures applied to them. Um, but they are certainly in so far as the data that are publicly shareable. Um, I'm not sure that information is in that export file as well. Um, so you can certainly, I realized that the, um, The filled in circles, I think. Yeah. I'm referring to, yeah. Um, So under the requirements for asset, uh, the, the depiction of how have, how our various schools and systems were doing relative to our goals, uh, needed to be a simplified system. Um, which is where some of the, um, the data that we came from and how the snapshot displays, but there's, there's definitely an export feature where you can get at the data that are behind that platform. Yes. I, so if we're looking at, um, under seven, uh, B where our, our version of the bill right now says some relevant data is not readily available from the Vermont AOE, such as the total number of days missed by students. I appreciate your point. And with a lot of help in digging that you could get to those numbers, but it doesn't seem to me that that would be a mischaracterization to say it's not readily available. If I was a concerned parent in Rutland, I don't feel like I could navigate this and get to. Some numbers or something that would tell me more than just how much that circles filled in. Uh, we can certainly take that back to the, uh, that feedback back to the, um, to the vendor. Uh, the export functionality is, is readily available there. Um, I don't know the degree to which we can, um, adjust the platform in, um, In any immediate sense. Uh, but I can certainly take that feedback back to, uh, the vendor on that piece. Yeah. I guess I'm just wondering is it, does it really hurt to have, you know, I see maybe the discrepancy with the language and a, they don't, we don't publicly report, but to say that some of it's not readily available, not to cast blame on Vermont IOE, but I think it does create some important purpose and work behind this bill. I don't know how others on here are reading that, but. I think that the, how we interpreted readily available is that it is not except you cannot get it. Um, in any short order, uh, the export functionality is, is, is live, has been live for quite some time. And we have a data request process where, um, folks, the general public, uh, if, if there are ever any questions about these data or where they come from, you just contact us through that and we help folks find it. So I think, I think I hear you in the, in the question about how we're interpreting ready. Um, but I would recommend that, um, there are existing supports and staff, uh, who are dedicated to making sure that folks can, can get at those data and find them. Um, and then also know how to use them. Yeah. So the data does exist. I think this is one of the things that we're, we're noting. I see, uh, just to Carol us. Yeah. Thank you. Uh, just to Carol us for the record, uh, division director agency of education, I, I think to representative Brady's point, um, but also addressing this tension, which is, I think with the developer, the focus often is particularly with our website because I think the agency of education can own that we can sometimes be, uh, um, guilty of this is making sure that representing the data was easily consumable, um, by the general public. And I think that was the default, but what I'm hearing representative Brady say, right? So it's always like, if it's too complex, then it's not accessible. But what I'm hearing is that perhaps it's too simplified, uh, in this regard to get at some of the nuance. And, and what I think Dr. Geller and I can do is maybe put our heads together or think about whether there could even just be some readily accessible language on the website to tell people how to download the CSV file so they can access that information. I don't know if that would be helpful for folks. I'm going to, I'm going to start to move us a little bit here because we're still just on. Yeah. Um, everyone can still see my screen. I, I'm not quite accustomed to working in team or working in, in zoom. So you're doing great. Okay. Super. All right. So we're just going to scroll down here now. Um, to see, uh, we do have some, uh, factual clarifications and additional material that are, that is here from the program folks. Uh, in, in what is currently, uh, the, the case around whether or not, uh, relevant data are maintained by us. Um, here at the AOE. So this is from our program partners and the student support services division. Uh, they have advised us that, uh, title 16, uh, says that they're, they're authorized and encouraged to do so, but we don't have a, an explicit requirement, um, outside of federal requirements around, um, related services that are written into the IP for students who are served through special education. Um, so there is a note, um, around, uh, consecutive versus cumulative. Uh, and then there is, there is a note from our program folks that discuss how there's no other guidance about educational services, um, or provision to collect data as to whether there are any other services other than those related to those IP that are, are, um, provided. Uh, so the, the next, uh, factual clarification, I think that's really important for folks to know, um, is the, the discussion about the civil rights data collection or we, we refer to it as the CRDC. Um, so this and, and, and we have provided the exact language from, um, the office of civil rights CRDC, uh, webpage. Um, this is what's called a direct collection. Um, which means that this is a collection that the federal government manages directly with the, the LEAs on the ground. Um, and so we really don't have a role. We, as in the AOE, the SEA does not have a role, uh, in this collection. Um, and we, um, so we are not involved, I guess, is the best way to, to say that it's, it's managed at the federal level. Um, and so we really wouldn't, uh, we wouldn't want to comment about the, the, uh, office of civil rights data collection practices and the accuracy, uh, of their, um, of this collection. Uh, it has been running since 1968, uh, not in its, uh, exactly the same form. It has evolved over time, uh, but it is a very long standing collection. Uh, and it has, uh, certainly been seminal to quite a number of, uh, very important, uh, civil rights, um, pieces of legislation, policy, guidance, rules, et cetera. Um, throughout its, its long history. So, um, we do have some suggested language that you could consider here, uh, because these are a direct collection. Um, and there is some resources that we've provided here in the factual clarifications, uh, column, uh, if you care to, to read a little more, uh, about it, if you want to dig in a little deeper. Um, so just provide those there in the middle column. Uh, and then we move on to number eight, uh, more data on school discipline plaque practices. Excuse me. Uh, is necessary to understand strategies around that. Uh, and so this moves down to be here. And then we have some suggested language that notes, um, you know, could be the designee of the secretary who might be a part of the membership of the group. Uh, I was actually thinking about that, that maybe that is that would definitely, uh, reduce the, the number if we said, you know, the, the commission, the. Executive director or designee would reduce the number. Is that what you're saying? Um, we, we, uh, we just thought that maybe there, there, there might want to be a designee for the secretary. Oh, okay. Yes. Yes. Um, and then we, we did suggest the inclusion of the, uh, uh, SU or and or school data managers in this group. Um, you know, data are a, are an organization wide effort. Um, and, and these there's certainly not just the work of the data folks. Um, you know, indeed folks all across the organization engaged with the student information system and, and it's critical that they are, uh, a part of how we build a culture of data quality. Um, but these are also the folks who understand the nitty gritty around, um, how you define an element will really matter in terms of what it will be, um, what its strengths and weaknesses will be and how you can use it. Um, so we thought that this might be a group of folks who might have some knowledge and expertise that could potentially be valuable to the work. Um, I don't know if it's a school business officers or it might not be. Um, it might not be. It kind of depends. We see a lot of variation all across the state with who the folks are that, um, that fill a role likes us. Uh, but it's, it's kind of up to the, the, the SU and the school as to which member of their personnel ends up filling this type of a role. Okay. Representative Brady. No. So we'll just scroll down here to the powers and duties. Uh, let's see. Uh, so we've, we've just noted the inclusion of the existing data that are there, uh, through the, the tools and platforms that are on the web already. Uh, so that they're included with the YRBF. And then on E, uh, we've recommended using the available data. Uh, and then surveying the SUs on their local data collection processes regarding how they collect and manage, uh, school suspensions and expulsion data so that that could help inform the work of the task force. Okay. So just scrolling down again to two. Uh, so in, in terms of, um, some factual clarifications here, we thought you might be interested in the, um, well, and the fact that with regard to the required reporting on the reason for an incident. Um, so in this case, we're giving an example of if it was motivated by race or religion or sexual orientation. Uh, currently that information is collected and that variable called category and the existing, um, Sears data files that are submitted as part of the year end collection, but it's important to know that these data are only collected for harassment incidents. And the data collection system would require quite substantial development work and field training to collect this for all reported incidents. Um, so when it comes to, sorry, go ahead. I just see just a careless and you want to finish that sentence. And I want to make sure that she has a chance to weigh in. Oh yeah. I was just going to get into how it works within the collection itself, but go ahead. Uh, director to careless. Yeah, no, go ahead. When you, when are you finishing? Then I'll just comment because there was a section above too. Section. So when it does come to those expulsion data, this type of event, it's not often reportable here in Vermont because it happens so seldomly on an annual basis. So from, from a, and by reportable, I mean reporting publicly. Um, so historically that number has been fewer than 10 incidents across the entire state on an annual basis. Uh, our, our, um, suppression level is 11. So, um, that's just a piece of factual information that folks might want to know about. Um, so, uh, then we have the note on the education data on education services during an exclusion. Uh, they're not collected on suspension. Uh, but what we do see in the data is that the majority of those suspensions are between one and three days and it might be difficult to stand up alternative services quickly in that short of a time period. Um, particularly in the case of those out of school, uh, suspension. So, uh, just another note that they are collected whenever connected to a student with an IDP for the federal requirement. Just do you want to jump in there? Sure. Would you mind just going back up to a section E real quick. I think one, one note, um, particularly around this, this language around compiling on a school district and approved independent school basis, the available data is just a caution when we're talking about compiling because the agency already does come collect and compile, uh, these data and in accordance with, you know, rules governing appropriate, uh, collection methodology and FERPA is, is to maybe clarify that. And I think that that language that we've offered is just thinking about a separate non-governmental body, perhaps engaging in data collection at an even school level basis, particularly if you even have students who are sitting on this and making sure that we're adhering to FERPA and protecting the privacy of students. And then I think just generally for sections two through four, um, what you'll see is, is just language cautioning that particularly when it comes to this intersection of, you know, the sort of civil or criminal or juvenile justice systems and education that we're making sure that we're not, uh, engaging in behaviors that might be counter to some of the, the collections or rules governing those systems, particularly I'm thinking about the juvenile justice system, which is by design, a lot of that, those records are non-public. So we just wanted to make a note there. Um, and I think we've offered some language, but obviously, um, you know, there'll be other input from other folks. Thanks, Wendy. Thanks, Jess. Thank you. Um, so there's just that language about the, uh, uh, as permissible under existing reporting and collecting rules and procedures. Um, so to Jess's point, um, I think you've covered those, but Jess, do we want to spend any more time on those pieces or try to crack on? Let's crack on. Okay. Uh, so then under F, um, about, uh, recommended changes. Um, we have adjusted that to say recommended additions because our data collection practices are guided by the federal government's standards and requirements. Um, and so while, uh, there are certainly going to discuss recommended additions for the types of data collected, uh, we really need to make sure that we're going to maintain adherence to our, to the expectations of the federal government, um, has for us the requirements that they have for us around, uh, collection management and reporting. Uh, and let me see here. Um, we've just noted the, uh, needing to, to be in accordance with those federal and state rules and best practice around governing appropriate data collection and reporting. Um, so, uh, certainly room for conversation about additions, uh, but ensuring that we're adhering to best practices, uh, and making sure we can fulfill our, our requirements. Uh, is that a, is that a new, no new comment? Or is that I'm just seeing your hand up and just, I'm just going to invite you to just speak. I forgot to lower my hand. Okay. Just go ahead and speak at this point. We're going through this chart. Okay. Great. Um, so then moving down, uh, we, we did suggest, uh, pushing out the timeline a little bit to give this, uh, task force ample time to, to do this important and thoughtful work. Uh, so that suggestion is just here. You'll see in the, in the third column on the right. Yeah. And Wendy, I'll just jump in real quick. Cause I think if we do push this out and, and particularly in reflecting on some of the conversations we even had this morning thinking about, um, testimony we've heard from the act one work group is, is, uh, you know, just understanding that with these really sort of thorny, complex, incredibly important issues, particularly as they pertain to equity, it's just giving a long enough on ramp for folks to navigate those complexities to make sure that they're, um, Being informed by all of the information they need, but by changing that date, there will likely be implications for thinking about, I think you had some, uh, recommendations for number of meeting times. There might be implications for whatever the compensation pattern might be. So we didn't actually sort of spell that out because we just put this forward as a recommendation, but wanted to signal that there would be implications in other areas. Okay. So then in section four, this is really just to align the, um, the, the secretary or the designee. Uh, and then it's also to provide some suggested language around giving some room for, uh, the, the folks here at the ed to be able to give, um, essentially a training, um, on what's available, where it comes from, what it's strengths and limitations are, how you use it. Uh, and then, um, to, to give folks a chance to, to really understand those data and what you can know from them, um, as well as what you can't know from them, where their limitations are and how they're used. Uh, so that's, that's something from a, from a data perspective that's really critical for folks. Um, so essentially data literacy. So, um, okay. So we'll just move on. To be. So we just added some, some suggestions here around the need for evaluating. Um, and then potentially adding some, some rules, uh, uh, governing reporting, uh, around that. And then, uh, kind of incorporating what would come out of the task force analysis of those extent and publicly shareable data. Then down here, uh, providing some suggested language around some room for recommendations. Uh, and then, uh, just again, acknowledging that we have, you know, guardrails that we have to operate with them with regard to, um, federal data collection and reporting rules and requirements. Um, just that I, did I miss anything here? I know sometimes a little too far in the weeds. Um, so I will just stop sharing now. Okay. Thank you. That's a lot. I'm much more used to teams. So. Yes. And probably I think as I just did with literacy, um, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, Aaron might, um, suggest that you do the same thing and maybe work with, um, Jess and, and. Let's counsel on maybe someone from the field. Um, looking at, uh, where we want to go. With these changes. Hearing this, I think the idea of making sure that the group has a training on the data sounds like a really good idea. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chair. I'm not sure, uh, precisely who this question is for. So I'll just toss it out there. Um, And I'm sorry I didn't. Pick up on this a couple of days ago, but, um, The bill starts out with, um, Some national findings and then sort of moves to. Those Vermont level findings that are available. And while I realized that findings don't, you know, And, um, one thing I know is that nationally, um, LGBTQ plus and gender nonconforming students also experience, um, disproportionately higher rates of, um, school disciplinary action. And, um, That's pretty well documented. So I don't see that reflected in the bill at. At all. And I wonder if, because I know we have low numbers in Vermont, we have a lot of gaps in our data. So I'm wondering one, whether we feel that that's not the case in Vermont, which I doubt. Or two, whether we feel that we should at least, um, Mention this in the findings and three, whether you feel. That, um, The bill may be sufficiently. Mentioned that point. I do know that. You know, sexual identity and gender orientation is one of the data points that we're asking them to look at. Um, I just have noticed sort of a big difference between, um, how this, you know, Group of students fares nationally according to the stats and then sort of the lack of that data here and the lack of that mentioned in our bill. Thanks. So I can speak to, um, I can speak to the existing data collection in that we do have, um, The, the, the incident was, uh, Something related to a protected class. Um, and so that is for harassment, uh, data. Um, as far as collecting data on individual students, um, Sexual identities or, or, or, um, gender identities or orientation. Uh, we do not currently collect, uh, those type of data. Um, the, there would be some. There would be some discussion. I think we would have to have with the task force around the ethics of, um, Collecting and storing those types of data on, on, on minors. Um, so I think that there's, there's discussion that could be certainly had, uh, in that area, um, from a, From an infrastructural standpoint, there would have to be some pretty substantial adjustments made to current data collection, Um, and management infrastructure, uh, to, To accommodate a new element like that. Um, And then certainly some pretty significant training for folks in the field who are collecting, uh, and reporting data like these. Um, but, uh, I, I, I believe that the extant data around, um, Uh, this topic is largely, uh, reported through the youth risk behavior survey. Um, And I think that the, the strength and the utility of a collection mechanism like that is because it is, um, It is, you know, anonymous for lack of a better turn of phrase. Uh, and so it, um, The, the risk to students privacy, uh, Is, is certainly a lot lower, uh, Then when you kind of talk about collections that we manage, Which are by their definition, um, They're really census level collections. Um, so, uh, Does that, does that help with the discussion? Oh, um, I mean, I guess I'm wondering, I, you know, I'm, I'm seeing, I'm seeing this data sort of reported at the national level. I mean, I, you know, I just went to sort of Google this and saw that the three groups of students most likely to experience exclusionary discipline are, um, uh, Black students, students with disabilities and LGBTQ students. So that, that seems to be readily available at the national level. And I thought in act one, we were, um, And maybe you mentioned this earlier, but I, I thought as a result of act one, We were starting to gather, um, Um, Hazing harassment and bullying info on LGBTQ students, among many other groups, right? So that's different. Uh, so we certainly right now collect data on an incident that is related to, uh, you know, A student's orientation or, uh, race or ethnicity. Um, we certainly collect data like that. Um, The differences that, um, We don't know whether or not the student themselves identifies that way. Uh, we're collecting data on whether the incident was related to a topic. Like that. Um, so for example, if there was to be a student who used a slur against another student. And that was a slur that was related to, um, LGBTQ plus, Uh, Hope. Um, it's the, the data that are being collected is whether or not the slur. Happened about a protected class. And not about whether or not the student who, um, Experienced that event is or is not. Of that protected class. It's just whether or not the event is related to. That protected class. Yeah. I'll lie. I guess I'm just. Thinking, um, that if the national stats bear out here in Vermont. Um, and that's a group of students that's also disproportionately experiencing. Um, school discipline and suspensions and stuff that we would want to know that. I would have to look at the material that you're taking a look at to see, you know, what the source of, uh, To, to get really into the, the collection. Um, logistics or, um, And how we would implement something like that. Uh, I think there's plenty of room for discussion. Uh, I'm just trying to let you know what we do and we don't do right now. Maybe that's just something for the task force to make sure that the task force looks at that. That's something we can, we can discuss. Um, representative Austin. Yes. Thank you. I'm just going back to section D. Um, on page seven. And I, you know, I'm a little concerned about trying to think where it is. Um, The word serious. Um, and I think it's in there. I have it down on D. Anyway, uh, I think serious is too broad a word in terms of when we're looking at behaviors. I wonder if we need to define the behaviors or, um, I think it's when students do get expelled or suspended. It's due to serious behavior, but how people define serious behaviors pretty broad. And I'm just wondering, um, At least my experience with kids being expelled. Or suspended was 90% of the time was due to unsafe behavior. Um, Um, And I'm just wondering if we should use that or use serious and, or unsafe to self and others. I'm sorry. I'm straight away. I'm on page seven. Um, Sorry. Is this representative Austin? Is this under the powers and duties, the task force shall. For all, but the most serious student behaviors. I wonder if serious is. I don't know if it's serious. Where are you? I'm sorry. I see where you are. Okay. You're on D power. There you go. Okay. I'm page six. Okay. Is that right? Sorry. I thought I wrote it down. Yes. Uh, under power powers and duties. The task force. Is this under the powers and duties? Um, I'm sorry. Um, I don't know if serious student behaviors. I wonder if serious is. I don't know if it's should be unsafe or serious and, or unsafe. Uh, I mean, Further down further down there, it does say define the most serious behaviors for down to line 20. Oh, okay. Sorry. I kind of, I just. Yep. Thank you. Yep. And then the other one is, um, I'm interested to hear what representative Brady thinks about this concern. Uh, this is D on page seven. Um, review school professional development programs and make recommendations on how educator practices such as, you know, and then it lists off some interventions. Um, That can increase educators awareness of students, social emotional needs in a manner to reduce these behaviors. Um, Um, You know, I, I've always like felt as an educator, I don't kind of, um, Diagnose why a student is behaving a certain way. I begin asking questions like what is getting in the way of the student. You know, accessing skills and knowledge to be able to stay in school. So I mean to automatically say it's social emotional. Um, I think that's a social emotional could be a lot of other reasons that I'm concerned that. Um, That's, that's that we're already identifying and diagnosing what the, the concerns that this student is, and they could have attention deficit disorder. They could have a physical disorder. They could have. Um, Is there a change that you would want to make in the way this student is doing it? Um, I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. But I need to think about it. Um, Can I explain a little bit? Yep. So that language was added in this version. And that language came from so they can jump in and help me out. A combination of, um, Jeff Fannon at NEA. And from the folks at the best project, it was trying to meld together similar ideas that we heard consistently. From folks around trying to put some. Um, into this bill too of what we do want to do, not what we, not just what we don't want to do. We don't, we want to stop excluding kids, but we want to have better practices in schools that support students and therefore minimize these kinds of, um, consequences. And so that seemed like the best place to put in a nod to things like PBIS, um, emotion, uh, trauma informed practices. Um, and I think that hopefully is also leading to fewer of what we're trying to get rid of here. So I don't know if that's the perfect place for it. That was my. Suggestion trying to pull together a language that was pretty similar from Jeff Fannon and from folks that we heard at UVM that had some pretty compelling testimony. I thought so. In terms of context, that's why that's there. Maybe it's not hitting the mark. Jeff Fannon's in the room. So. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Representative Brady, uh, did a great job in explaining it, but, uh, Representative Austin, the attempt here from, I raised it when I testified a week and a half ago, effort was representative Brady contacted me. I tried to put some language together. I spoke with a couple, um, educators and we, we picked it around a little bit. So it is work by committee and obviously the best, uh, when you write by committee, it's, oh, you know, there's probably a little bit of a language streamlining that could be done. Certainly. But the idea is to make sure that educators have some training so that they can avoid these, you know, the things that they might do that wouldn't alter behavior a little bit earlier on to avoid these end results. Uh, that's the aim is PD for educators and what I was talking about so that, um, we can, we can avoid and reduce the number of out of school suspensions. We don't think that's, you know, if stepping back, that's not a good thing. And I think we all agree on that. So how do we avoid it? And the notion there is giving tools, better tools to educators to avoid those end results. Right. My concern is that it may not be social emotional. You know, could be something's going on with the student at home. Um, I guess that would be social emotional, but it could also be a physical biological, uh, thing. And I just wouldn't want that to go undiagnosed, you know, or untreated. Um, because. You know, you're assuming that it's social emotional, maybe not biological. So, um, what response to invention intervention is now. When you could take, you could take out the phrase that splits between line four and line five can increase educators awareness of social emotional needs. And I think the full intent is still there. That we're reviewing how well interventions, trauma informed practices, restorative practices related, PBIS, I think wasn't at one point, whether we put it in or not in order to reduce behaviors. Great. No, I agree with that. Um, I agree with that. Aaron, I was thinking that too. I don't know that it makes a huge difference either way, but again, I agree with that. Um, and I don't know if the nod was trying to hear to get at that this task force isn't just looking at like. 10 expulsions, but it's looking at systems wide practices and shifts that will. Also have academic gains, coincidentally, but also that, you know, are going to improve overall school climate and behavior issues and. The whole host of things, the bill is dealing with. Chair, Representative Austin, I don't know, you seem to stumble or have issues with the social, you know, the focus on social-emotional needs as, because there may be other needs that, so if you were to drop the two words, social-emotional is like a student's needs. Right, that's what I was thinking. So that it's, you know, people will be looking, be questioning like what's getting in the student's way. So if we strike, I'm gonna keep this moving, if we strike social-emotional, then that would get to the issue at hand and make you feel more comfortable that we're not diagnosing, Representative Austin. Do you feel that is, is that okay with the committee? Yep, I mean, that's what I'm asking. I'm not seeing any hesitancy, so we'll take that out for the next iteration. Okay, we have a lot of information that just came in from the agency. And I would appreciate, Representative Brady, if you could work with the ALE and Jim Day-Marie and I don't know if we need one of the these perhaps. Yeah, I would really love to have at least one other educator, somebody in the field perspective, whether that's the these, whether that's, but I feel a little uncomfortable doing it in a vacuum with ALE since you know where the data is and understand it. I'm struggling to access the data and I'm a vested party here. And then there's the schools that are actually doing this. So I think that it's important that we have that voice. Do we have someone volunteering to help with that? Is that a principal or a teacher? That would be better. I'm not seeing either of you volunteering. I understand it's nobody wants to take on more. No, I will do it. I think Jay's better equipped in so many ways. Yeah. So talented Jay. But I will pinch it and rely on Jay as a consultant in the background. How's that? Okay, that would be great. I support that move. Okay, that would be great. And you can work on that and we may not be able to get to until next week, but well, if you could work on it this week, that would be great. And Jesse, maybe you can help with setting something like that up. And this question, if you want to start your own Zoom there. Representative Brady. Other comments on the bill so far from the field? Yeah, Jay Nichols. Yeah, so just a few things. First of all, good work. Thanks for making the changes that specify the composition of the task force as we had previously suggested. I love the change to equitable and inclusive school environments. That also goes to what Jeff was talking about trying to frame things in a more positive light. I also want to thank you especially for adding the position of a special education administrator from VCSEA on the task force. I think that's going to be really important. You know, we want to make sure that we're making sure that we're taking care of all kids and kids with disabilities need to be really thought of as we go through this process. Additionally, VPA will work closely with school leaders to appoint two high school students to the task force if that language remains in the bill. I also like the addition to the work of the task force on reviewing school professional development programs, including PBIS and trauma-informed practices that are already in place in many Vermont schools. I think that's a nice touch. If Sarita would like to talk about that for the next three hours with all of us, I'd be glad to do that too. Kidding, Sarita. Your own Zoom. The one change that I mentioned before, and I want to make sure I share again, and I did send it in writing to UChairWeb and to representatives Conlin and Larry Cooperley last night is that in section six, they should also apply to any students who are receiving public funding. Right now the way that it reads or at least the version I have in front of me is that it would only apply to public school students and we want to make sure that it, the language we've previously suggested is a student enrolled in a public school or a private school program in which the institution is receiving public dollars for all or part of that student's tuition. We really want to make sure that that language is in the bill. And that right now will go in section six. Yeah. Do you have a comment on that on section six addressing our students that are publicly funded in independent schools? I don't think they have a comment on that. I suppose if they need though, if the independent schools need to change their policy just for the public students on public tuition, they probably need to change their policy for all students. I would imagine it'd be hard for them to have different policies for different students based on payment. So I might have a broader effect on the independent schools but that's a policy question, not a legal question. Is that better as a question to the advisory group? Well, remember this is just talking about the suspension expulsion piece for eight year olds and younger. That section is specifically about that. So what we're saying is that if a private school or a therapeutic school is receiving public dollars, they should be held the same rules that they could suspend or expel a kid who is a safety risk, but not for any other reason, same as it is for public schools. That's the, as far as I'm reading this, that would be the only change that a private program would have to make, many of which already don't do that just like most public schools don't expel kids that are eight years and younger. But we just feel they need to be the same for our Vermont kids. So let me send this to you, Jay. So what you were saying, I think is you want to apply this to approve the impasse rules. That's correct, Jim. Yeah, that is a positive question. That's got a lot of tentacles, doesn't it? Representative Brady. Well, we're on that section and we all just put our eyes on it here and make sure we're okay. Cause that's a, I think a bigger change, which was suggested by the folks at UVM. But so this is section six. So we're on page 13. D, we changed it in this version so that it's not just expulsion, but it's also suspension getting rid of that under eight. Because of testimony we heard from AOE last week that expulsions were so rare. And the folks at UVM offered, I thought, an important insight that if we leave it just as expulsion that might not really move the needle very far. And I think they would want to get at that from age eight up as well. But I just want to make sure while we're in this phase so we don't run into this being a sticky point later that we're okay with that change there. So on line six, suspended or expelled. I'm looking out to the people in the room. Yeah. I'm looking out to the NEA, I'm looking out to the bees. I'm looking to Joanne. Joanne and I actually had a conversation about this a couple of days ago as well, Representative Brady. And when we saw the language expel in there without the language suspend, we were wondering what the intent of the committee was and we had planned on raising that. Expulsion in Vermont means 90 days at the end of the calendar year, whatever's greater and suspension obviously is completely different. But then we saw that in this version that Jim had already made that change. You know, we had a suggestive but we totally understand where they're coming from and you're right. Expulsion for kids eight and under. 25 years I've been doing this, I don't know of any. Yeah. Okay. We'll flag that as a. I think Joanne is trying to speak but she's muted. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Hi. I just wanted to know about regarding the eight year olds and younger is whether there needs to be some language in there that recognizes that the Vermont school disciplinary laws and processes that apply as well as the state and federal protections for students have disabilities or who have a suspected disability apply and considering suspensions for students who are younger than eight as they apply to other students as well. I mean, the protections aren't clear in the section to me at least regarding students who are eight years old and younger. It's more permissive. It reads more permissively than I would like to see. Now we would like to see, you know without the added protections. I would imagine that any eight year old that is in this predicament is also probably going to be immediately referred for an evaluation. One would hope, you know there are circumstances that could indicate otherwise. Yeah. Yes. I am aware of children younger than eight being threatened with a police in school needs. So I don't think we can assume that one assumes that these protections apply when that language just looks more permissive than it is. Representative Conlon. Two questions. I guess one immediately for Joanne and that is are you saying that the language that we have is more permissive than you would like to see or are we referring to federal language? No, no, we're referring to the language in this bill that doesn't include the protections that are there for all students in actual fact in terms of processing any kind of expulsion. I mean, it doesn't refer to any of the process of procedures that apply to any child. And then in, and particularly in the case of younger kids that are younger than eight. What about any suspected disability or actual disability? Okay. From all late. You're all thinking about that but I just wonder whether there couldn't be a sentence that that this recognizes the protections that are in place. Does notwithstanding do that at all, Jim Demery? I'm not sure we would not understand that. I think it's more consistent with. Okay, as a layman not being immersed in this world to me, ours looks very non permissive and very clear cut unless you're talking about how do you define posing a threat of harm or danger to others? And that's, I assume more of the issue is. Right, right. Okay, great. And I guess I just wanted to. Are you poking a child with a, with a pencil? Yeah. That dangerous behavior. I mean that an act as simple as that can have very, very different interpretations. We might flag this issue for additional conversation within the small group, but Wendy Geller. Thank you, Chair Webb. I was wondering if you folks might be able to offer some me some clarification. I heard some language just a couple of moments ago about the approved independent schools. Yes. Could you help me understand the proposed the suggestion at hand? I asked because currently we don't collect these data from the approved independence and it would be quite a substantial undertaking to begin doing so. So I just was wondering if I misheard or maybe you could say a little more about that to help me understand. I don't think you misheard. Okay. That was where my question lay. I am assuming the independent schools as Jay clarified is only to deal with section six does not have to do with data collection at all. And I guess I just wanted to voice my support for that as well as recommend that we get probably some feedback from the independent schools folks if this would even be an issue for them, which I doubt. I would say we'd have to hear from the independent schools. Excuse me, Representative Austin. Yep. I'm just wondering in that last sentence, line seven D where it says expel the student if the student poses a threat of harm or danger to others in school. Can we add self and or danger to others in school? I mean, a lot of times little kids who would just run out of school, they'll just run out of school. I'm just, it's not just protecting other kids. It's also making sure that student is safe as well. This is referring to suspending or expelling them. You're saying that would be an added protection to a student who might be threat of harm or danger. It says that the school may suspender expel the student if the student poses a threat of harm or danger to others in the school, but I think it should say poses a threat of harm or dangers to self and or others. You're saying you'd like to see them have the ability to expel or suspend a student who might be posing a threat to themselves? Yes, until that plan can get into place until, you know, yeah. Boy, that doesn't sit well with me. Yeah, it seems like that's what you wouldn't wanna do. Well, what would you do if a student is out of control and refusing to stay in the school? I'm not sure I could expel them. Well, I don't know the word expel. It's mainly I think of putting them in their parents' care until we can figure out a plan to keep them in school. But I've chased, I don't know about Jay, but I've chased a few kids around the neighborhood who just refuse, they just left running. So, you know, anyway, it's not just others that they throw, you know, they pose a threat to themselves, especially for under eight-year-olds. And you think that expelling them might be a good way to handle it? I don't know, I don't like, well, I don't, what other way would you handle it? Would you keep them in school? I'd be bringing a team together, keeping themselves, there's a whole lot of things I would do before I can remove it now. I would make sure they're safe and I'm putting a team together. I'm sorry, I'm gonna back off, go back to put this group together. I'm gonna flag that as an area for discussion. Representative Brady, if you can also look at that one as well, I'm sure that we can reach out to some of the independent schools, with the independent school group. I imagine that that will not be well received. It's something to consider. And I also don't wanna still just build in. Anything else? That's a lot. Did anybody else wanna say anything else? To Anna or did I see you? Yes, yeah. I just wanted to applaud the changes that you've made in terms of the, both in terms of the name and in terms of the representation. I had just written up a whole piece about the multi-tier system of supports around social and emotional growth and behavior and the quality work that the best team has done. And so I was very delighted to see the best team represented because I think there is so much data that they have pulled together that's very valuable to look at, including the fact that the PBIS schools have shown a dramatic decrease since coming on board in terms of suspensions and for the exemplar schools as little as 1.6% in the last report. So I think that's very important for the committee to look at and also appreciate that the addressing and raising the question of LGBTQ students I think is really critical. And I think the best team will also help with a framework when people are presented with so many ideas in terms of what might be implemented in terms of interventions that to have a framework for addressing whether this is something that applies at the universal level, the targeted level, the intensive level or applies to staff training. All of those components need to be tailored at the right level of the intervention. So I was very glad to see that being addressed as well. And I think that was it. It just seems that some very good work has happened within the context of reviewing this bill and that all of the excellent testimony that came through has really made an impact on the strength of this bill. Thank you. I wanna thank the agency for pointing out the incredible data that you do collect and trying to figure out how we might best use it to inform our work. And I think that you raised some good points that we'll try to sort out and very much appreciate Representative Brady trying to corral that information. Given that we can't just easily go off in the cafeteria and hand it out the way we typically would. Anything else? Okay, I'd like to just take a little break before we go back to S114. I also know that Emily Simmons is coming in at three and she'll have a chance to comment on this as well. And so how about a five minute break? Is that good? Five minute break. So that means that I'll see you. We'll make it, why don't we make it 225? We'll be back. Thank you everyone.