 Good afternoon, everyone. It's Friday, April 30th, 151 p.m. This is Senate education. We are going to be returning to the floor at four. We certainly, I don't plan on having us here that long. There are really two, two areas of focus. We have the H106 continuing our work on. As well as as 16, I know that we also have H4 49 on our calendar. And that's something if senators are interested in, we will return to after we finish our immediate work that bill again is in government operations and we will. But we'll continue our walkthrough if Ms. Wasserman has some time after they she finishes her work there. Again, it's not in our possession and then each 101 I have scheduled a vote for but I think I'm going to punt that until next week just in case we need it for any other bills that might come back to us or anything else we want to add. So with that, let's focus H106 community schools bill, just to give everybody an update on H106. I had a meeting this morning with the pro 10, and others about this bill. I'm just wondering today from Ms. Finn and we have Deputy Secretary Boucher back with us. I think Senator Perkley also may have somebody that might come in next week, or at least he may touch base with constituent on this bill but we're looking at probably a Wednesday vote on this, given that we've been on the floor quite a bit we haven't really had the time to continue our work on it that's the plan. So we'll hear from again Ms Finn today, as well as Deputy Secretary continue to make edits, we do have Senator Pearson coming in on Tuesday on this bill. One of the reasons I met with the pro 10 Senators Pearson and star this morning was Senators may recall from yesterday's vote on s 100. In my floor comments, it. I mentioned how there was not yet agreement on creating markets, incentivizing schools to buy local foods, creating food markets, all that language that we had hoped would travel with s 100, and we had been told that it would travel with s 100. The Agriculture Committee, Senator Pearson in particular is really pushing for that language I certainly think I for one would like to see that language go through as well in talking with a little bit with the chair of some of the other groups and others seems like s one h 106 would be a good spot to put that, given also that we have in that bill now. A study on getting us to universal school meals so I asked Senator Pearson to come in on Tuesday introduced that idea to the committee take us through his thoughts let us know some of the other people that he's spoken to and we'll go from there. And then Jim h 101 I did mention that we're going to punt that until next week, because we may need it as a vehicle for other work. And so the one thing I'm going to ask you to do if you don't mind is, can you do a title change to that. Right now it is there the house's literacy bill. It has language in there, mostly around the State Board of Education, it's our diversity and it's also some of the agreements that we, Secretary French and John Carol have agreed to, can you change that name to for us, just make it a more of a state board. I did change the name already. Terrific terrific I did not see that on the agenda so I thought that maybe it was the same. So, very end of the of the amendment. Great. Okay, terrific so I appreciate that take a look. And do you want me to update 106 for Tuesday with that. I think, you know, I want to be respectful to the committee, of course, and the process so I want the committee to hear from Senator Pearson first and then we'll kind of see it where everybody falls. I, I for one am enthusiastic about getting that going I think I do agree with people that 106 might be a good spot but I'll leave that to the committee I don't think there's anything to update. I'm going to ask if you do. You do have time. If you wouldn't mind updating a little bit the. If it makes sense at all and I'll look at it this weekend. Is there any language that we should put in 106 that again ties food ties nutrition ties, get into universal school meals, connects it at all to the underlying 106 bill. I don't know the answer to that question, but if you could just take a look at it. There's anything there. Questions at this point comments. Okay. Miss Finn. Thank you for being with us thank you for your patience. I just heard that. And as you and I have spoken we are in the final lap, or close to it of the session. You did send us a lot of suggested changes. I think perhaps the best way to do this is for us to take about 15 or 20 minutes and have you take us through some of these changes, and, and maybe even prioritize them in a way. It may be that the committee is comfortable with all of them but let's start with a little bit of a walkthrough if you would. Can you can everybody see the rec the recommendations, they were emailed to us. So if I'm looking at I'm looking at them, I can just point out where we are where where I am in them. We have a date April 22 2021. Yes. And we made adjustments based on the, we hope the most recent draft 3.1. I have it right here 3.1. Yes. Okay, wonderful. And things in yellow and red. Yeah, okay. Okay. And can I give just a little bit of background into that. Okay, thank you. We, we. So, for the record, my name is Carl and Finn I'm the policy a senior policy associate with voices for months children. I'm here on behalf and I think Deborah, Lisa Baker testified to this on Wednesday on behalf of the one education equity project, the members who have all contributed to these suggestions, and we thank you for the opportunity to, to, you know, share these with you. We see the community schools approach as a, as really an umbrella. That makes connections across disparate implementation efforts of education policies, and as a model for transformative change in our schools and so you know, we think about these existing state policies and some, some bills and I know one of the bills is you're going to be looking at come back from the house as 16 but we have these great state policies such as act 77. Act 24, which is, is an old law, but I think it's still relevant it's about supporting coordination of services between education, public education human services and of course act one focused on educational equity and social justice, and with local and regional equity work. So this community school framework can really be a catalyst for building partnerships to address significant needs and challenges, which the bill really digs into, and be steeped in equity and a commitment to change how necessary to address deeply rooted inequities and so there's the, there are four themes that we just wanted to point out because when we go through it so it's such a, you know, specific language but what we're trying to address are education equity and really finding a way through language to, to, to make sure that equity is is front and center in this legislation and Senator Campion I think you might, I was copied on an email to you from John Castle, one of the members who participated in this is a superintendent from North Country Supervisory Union and he talks about the importance of this as a framework or an approach to community schools and not a program. And his, the way that he frames it is, is really that the committee define community schools as as a framework so that it can remain a dynamic and organic process and avoid that kind of that checklist that program checklist did we do this, this and this. The third theme is the focus on community schools as a responsive strategy, kind of similar to that but it's building on resources, assets, as well as addressing some of the significant needs and concerns that we have and so it's kind of wanted to the language that we've offered to steeped in that, and then we're offering an additional pillar. That is, would incorporate actually pieces of what you have put into the legislation it would incorporate things like PBI PBIS and forgive me I can never remember what that stands for, but you know, in the restorative practices and there's a lot of approaches, and it also would include curriculum and the work of, you know, the work of the focus of Act one and really seeing inclusive and safe environments for for students so that's, that's the big framework, and now I can go through and kind of bring back to the to that framework, these different additions that are recommendations okay. So, on page one section to the findings section. We, you know, the reason that we, we spent time on the findings is that it seems, I think we feel that it should be really expressing the intent of the bill and have really guide the purposes and actions. So that is why we, we spent time on the language around the in the findings, excuse me so the first that you know the finding is is that we're suggesting starting with so adding every child should be provided an equitable education. And fortunately, we have a definition of that from the agency of education. And you know there are there are the AOE and others have done some real, really important work on defining and thinking about what what that means education equity, or equitable education and here it's as defined as access to the resources opportunities and educational rigor, they need. This is for students of you at the right moment in their education, whatever their race, gender identity sexual or so you can see that this meeting with us is important. If this bill can reflect it should reflect that it's it's going to focus on education equity or an equitable education. So if let's pause on this, you may so at the right moment. So this is more aspirational. Correct. I mean I just don't want people provide an equitable education is to do. At the right moment in their education. It just I worried and actually we have deputy secretary who say here, if we might have a conversation about these because we were hoping you would weigh in in general would you mind commenting on that. So certainly, Mr chair for the record Heather Boucher deputy secretary for education. It's not it's whether it's aspirational or not it is the definition of educational equity, Miss Finn is completely correct so this is the definition that the state agency uses when making decisions pertaining to programs that that we support, and it's certainly the definition that we hold districts and schools too. So we appreciate the coherence actually. So you're so you're good with us adding that yes we appreciate the improvement in terms of coherence. Very helpful center person. I just wondered about the bolded language is that part of the definition or was that added because this is adapted from the whole. My understanding is and I don't have a right in front of me but I've seen, I've reviewed the written testimony that miss Finn put forth is my understanding is the entire bolded section is the agency of education language, and miss Finn can correct me if I'm wrong but I think it is. So yes, that is the definition that we use. So only the delineations of the children are like race gender all those are the are bolded so I just wondered if that was added because if we delineate all the different groups, when we say every child and then we say, here are all the delineations. If we happen to miss one does that mean they're not included and so on the second finding we say every child, but we don't list out all the groups so it. My understanding is that we sorry, Senator Parch like I have a habit of pretending that we're in person and I'm French Canadian and so from a big family and so I interrupt a lot and I apologize for that. As I think Mr chair knows because I've done it before in this committee and I apologize. My understanding is that our language is not exclusive of those. And that's not something that we would be supportive of so I'd want to, I guess then check that language it. I think it might say including but including the categories of it's a pretty comprehensive list so it. Yes, there can always be another categorization certainly, but I think we went really, really broad in terms of the agency's categorization. I guess in that if if we say every child that would include everybody so we're not disincluding anybody there. Then when you do we have to, or should we list as them out every time we talk about every child so like in the second finding. We don't say whatever their race gender, anything else. So that's, that's my only just, it's just a question for that I'm not opposed to. Yeah, Senator or deputy secretary Boucher. Sure. So, this is something that we do a lot in an education so of course we want the best outcomes for all students but we, we're calling out this equity piece because we want to make sure that students who fall into at least these categories have special attention given their marginally underserved status. So, we don't actually see those as mutually exclusive and we don't you know we think that we think it's okay to have both. And we don't think that saying all excludes certainly doesn't exclude historically under under served youth and we don't think when we say, when we want to actually speak about some of the particular challenges and barriers that historically marginalized youth experience that it somehow, you know diminishes a focus on on all students we think that there's room at the table for both of those perspectives. Senator Hooker. I think that you know we're referring to this list are similar lists and a lot of the legislation that we've been doing this year, and it is a focus. And also I think that where it says whatever their race color, and I think that makes it more inclusive. I think you do want to follow up. No, that's fine I mean I agree with the goal if we're trying to highlight that those that are have been suffering from inequitable education, but the way the way I read the list is just trying to, it's. Yeah, I'm fine with it. It's fun, you know, I agree with the goal and so it and it's, it's a finding so it, it's fine. So, unless I see an objection why don't we have Mr. Demeray there with us. Mr. Demeray if you would plan on including that language, we'd appreciate it. Thank you, Ms Finn, section two. Sure. We added our public schools. So this is just to what we were thinking about is that. That are our schools. When we're talking when we're talking about community schools and we're really talking about building and rebuilding around the community school model that we recognize that they're number one that it's a dynamic process of they're being designed, but they, they also need. resources. And so that's equipped but resources to deliver on the promise and which is in that the line before. And I just, we just wanted to, again, it may feel a little bit like we're, we're, we're just. We don't have any language for for its own sake but it, it is to acknowledge that the schools need the resources and, and they need the time to design or redesign, you know, that's so that's what that language is about. Questions there. I would like to get on every single one I would like to get through them all just so we in the next 20 minutes or so so why don't we keep going. If you want to just give that stuff. I'd say the highlights of each one. Three, that's language that adds really the assets of people helps to elevate the importance of the community school approach and in assets language and still acknowledging the challenges and the needs. And, you know, the beauty of the community schools is that it, it's really the focus is on bringing in the unique assets of both the communities but the people the students and so, so we're suggesting kind of reframing the findings to focus on assets. So at the same time, you know, acknowledging that there are plenty of challenges that that we're dealing with. Okay. Number four. So number four is the introduction to the concept of a new pillar, an additional pillar, which support it says supports the necessity of safe inclusive and equitable learning environments. And that that is like the way to for us to be introducing that as a pillar in the, in the, in the bill itself. Dr. Boucher, do you see any objections any concerns with that forth. No, okay. And I'll just wait for senators to raise hands for questions or concerns. Okay. Number five. Number five. Let's see. This is a changed again to focus on one of the folks raised the issue of instead of focusing on the gaps in, you know, is to is to focus on the systems issues that get to those like to achieve my gaps. And that's reducing the systemic racial and economic injustices and equities is, is how we framed that so it's, it's kind of, it's just a, you know, it's, it's another way of acknowledging that there are achievement gaps and other challenges but it's, you know, saying we're committed in this work to getting at the root of those of those challenges. I'm looking at number seven additional findings on page three. So I want to say something about those. So this is again, adding a, you know, kind of a focus on the essence of community schools, and, and we're thinking, and that this gets tricky but we're thinking that this could help, you know, highlight, think about informing the eligibility and evaluation methods. So it's describing community schools in a way where I'm not sure exactly how to do this I'm definitely not an evaluator. But as just a way to start thinking about how how the AOE is going to determine who is eligible and so this just put that in the findings as a, as a, as a step toward that, perhaps. So this, Mr. Demere, if you see anything, a lot of this, it's a lot of, it's great, you know, in general, I'm feeling very supportive of it. It's just as long as we're not overlapping with anything that's already in the bill, or just, you know, I think for our Ledge Council to keep an eye on it. And certainly Dr. Boucher as we go through this any any concerns. Okay. Turning to the purpose. And this is the, this is where we're suggesting taking out the word program is essentially, you know, keeping taking out the word program and just identifying this as a implementation implementation of community schools. Does that tell me a little bit more if you wouldn't mind. Why is why tell me that the problem with programs. Let me see how this is this is what John Castle, what John Castle said, he said that we, and he's talking about education, you know, in schools education in general, we've drifted away from seeing the interconnectedness of our work. He's specifically talking about the four pillars because he outlines why they're so important that the ones that are named right now. And that that should be emphasized as an approach around community schools. And he's saying, you know, encourages us encourages you not to define community schools as a program, because that it makes it much more static, and that that, you know, tendency to think about it as okay, this is, here's a program and here's our checklist mindset. Okay, so we've done a B and C and it's not as dynamic as just naming, you know, the community schools approach just community schools and thinking about it as a, as an approach to, to this work. I'm personally fine with keeping programs in I think it, it to me it makes, you know, there are programs that are going to come from community schools and these programs are going to, you know, are sort of, you will part of that wrap around service. So, I mean, I can I can go either way but I see Senator Hooker is going to. I'm just wondering, as Ms. Finn said that framing it as more of a system, and as opposed to a program program sort of has a finite or. You know, they, there is a mistake in the testimony, it's actually programs. It was not program in the, I mean, and there is a different there is a difference there programs that are going to be instituted, compared to the community school program. So, just know that. I think the broader aspect of it, while all encompassing piece is what sets it apart from other programs that are implemented at schools, but that's I need it may be just semantics and. Yeah, yeah, I'm going to stick with programs unless I see a lot of objections right now. And then we can always come back to it, if you don't mind, if how about this and I'll flag it as something that we return to and have a discussion on that's the one area. And then there's also the second piece of that Ms. Finn, remove education. Let's see. Oh, yeah, sorry. That was also a suggestion from an educator that that to define education more broadly as learning opportunities and then making sure that we include the necessary supports in there. So, so that is. Yeah, that those are educators suggestions to remove the word education and to put instead high quality learning opportunities and necessary supports nation of community school programs that provides students with equitable access to high quality learning opportunities and necessary supports that create a task force on Universalist. And why do you have Universalist school lunch there. Because that's where it was. The new. Yeah. There I see it now I see it now. Thank you. Okay. I mean, I'm okay with it. Yeah. I'm sorry, I think it brings it beyond the walls of the school. Yeah, when you say learning opportunities. You know, we're talking about that intersection with community with families. So you can learn in many different situations. So when we think of education in this context, you know, in the context of a school. There, I think has a different meaning. So maybe the learning opportunities sort of opens it up more. Yeah, I feel like it. I feel like it does center person. I don't know if there's a real definition between two. Delineation between the two words, but in the, you know, the findings we talk about equitable education, equitable learning opportunities. So I don't know. I don't know if it matters so I go either way. I don't care really. If there isn't a definition should we keep education because we're talking about that in findings. Mr. Demeray. Do we keep Education or do we, we need thoughts. Well, I only thought it's whatever you do. It should be consistent. Okay, I'm not sure I'm looking. I'm not sure many of these are making huge big changes in the bill itself, I'll be honest. I mean, it's, these are language, you know, I don't see the bill passed with some of these without them. I'm thinking they're maybe a little bit more holistic a little bit more. You know, some added language, I'll be honest, Ms. Finn, I don't see this as these as huge game changers, if you will, overall. Let's let's again I'll flag this, but let's keep it education for now and we'll keep programs in for now and then we can always come back. So let's go let's continue on to the section to a since we're going to keep programs in for now so beyond the next section of red into yellow where it says add to integrated community supports. And this is language that really is meant to elevate what young people bring. And it's, it's very, it's very specific. I know it's a lot of additional language but it. The bill. The hope is that we're, we're really seeing community schools through this lens of, you know, what young people bring, what the capacity of students and families offer their schools, and so that we're moving from not from but we're adding to the concept of services to the concept, you know, the full service model to the concept of really bringing in the the value and again assets that are students or youth or children bring and their families and community. What is universal design for learning. Yeah, that's, that is a particular, and you know that that's a really good question that is a particular approach to to curriculum that that allows for different different ways of learning. To make sure that students with or young people who with different learning ability are kind of included in, and there's a focus there on, particularly on like linguistic, it says cultural linguistic diversity. The universal design part is really to make sure that all kids, all students have, you know, access to to the learning the teaching and learning that's going on. Dr. Boucher. Is this something that's recognized. And is this something that you'd be comfortable with. There's like policy language and we don't want to make any decisions without consulting you. Yes. Thank you Mr chair and if I may there. There's nothing about Ms Finn suggestions that is worrisome to us. Okay. I have a hard stop at three. Yeah, and we're, we're just going to we're just hitting the highlights here will. I think the only spot where we're going to be returning air the issues around some questions about whether or not the word programs or education are going to be used, but we'll just continue. Let's continue with Ms Finn and wrap this up and then we're going to move to you but it sounds like again, everything here, nothing is, is concerning to you this being proposed. Okay, great. No, no, Mr chair, could I actually add a piece though to what Senator Hooker and Ms Finn have said about the systems piece, please, we would actually support that as well because one of the issues of this bill and I think of of a sole focus even on schools per se is that it's a bit out of step with a frame around a district approach and many of our inequities are actually across schools within a district and so we want to find that sweet spot and if we're moving forward with this where you're also holding that district accountable for making sure that all schools in its district have what is needed for an equitable education and so I think that's how you get at this because when you talk about a system of community schools, it allows for that flexibility to be able to be thinking about your full sort of group of schools at a district level or even in a region. And many of the supports and resources that miss that I talked about we would want those to be actually negotiated from the agency of Education's perspective at a district level with attention toward those schools that need it the but that district piece I mean if if we aren't really taking that kind of lens I worry that we're out of step with Act 46 for instance where we've been really trying to push into a more systemic kind of education system and I think that there's a way to do it here. And I might be using slightly different language than what Senator Hooker and Ms. Finneve said but I think that we're in agreement with with not so much about the the word program or not for us it's more just about that lens that schools are very important but you need to think about like a system of schools and you need to think right because you wouldn't want for instance just and I'll be quiet but you wouldn't want for instance, an amazing K3 community school and then the student is going off to a middle school that is is really terrible and is in his antithetical to what was going on in the community school. Does that make sense. It does so we're what language would you like. I think I think just instead of program you could put system. Or even like a system of community schools or something like that. Okay, I think it's actually I think it's already. It's baked into the logistics in some sense because the districts are who has to actually apply for the money, but I do think it warrants. So just some tweaking a language and I can take a look at it over the weekend and if I see any places that are quick fixes I can get back to you. For the record we're still not in full support because the timing but I'm realizing that this is a train we're not we've lost and it's moving forward. We're going to continue to have a conversation with you on. And I do need to just interrupt for one moment Senator perch lick. Great news Senate appropriations would like to see you on h426 if you don't mind. I'm going to send you a zoom link right now. If you don't mind. Is that right now. Okay, it's. You're emailing it to me or what I'm emailing it to you it's on its way to zoom link. If you don't mind. Really appreciate it. Okay, so. So Jim are you taking some of this down I think we're getting somewhere I think we're will end up in a good spot. I think that additional language makes it more inclusive more broad gets its systems. All feels good to me miss Finn. I do want to keep. Keep plugging along here with us for another five minutes and then we're going to shift to the deputy secretary. I think C on page six C is just again it's adding language that's very specific about, you know, making sure that all students and their families feel a sense of belonging and it's actually bringing us back to or or leading to the fifth pillar that we're proposing. And then on D. Add to collaborative leadership and practices and integrated school and community leadership team that would include youth and family representatives, I think it's, it's, you know, it's described in more detail, I realize it's described in more detail in the site based leadership team. And this we put this in before that change, but I would highlight the youth part because that the students and youth are not having been listed in the that that site based leadership team and we think that they that they should be you know members that they should be included and and their voices elevated. And then, okay, and then he on the next is pages that is this fifth pillar if you will, safe inclusive and equitable learning environments. That sounds good. Absolutely. Oh, here's the here it is on page 75 site based leadership team at students that so that's really what we're suggesting there. So, so I clear on page seven ads students to I leadership team lists. Ah, yes, that's fine. Got it. Thank you. And then, so this, this, I will say that, as I said earlier, I'm not exactly sure how this would work so you know, we, we're really thinking about if we want to talk about we want to think about this and through an equity framework. If the AOE is determining. I think with now it was with the secretary agency of secretary of the agency of human services but now the trauma. Staff, but that that they use an equity, unequity lens and again the AOE has this. And there are others but AOE has this great equity lens tool. And it would help. I, you know, we think it would help because it would give the framework for what the community, you know what the school districts or the community in school districts are are aiming for right in in in this approach and in in trying to get a community school up and running. Right. And so that that's our recommendation. I'm not sure how how that works with the AOE, you know, and their process. Dr. Boucher. How do you feel about that? It's actually, as I think I shared before, the process that we use that we do, but I don't think it hurts to actually put put that in there. I don't know. I think the committee would need to discern whether you want the equity tool to be used in making decisions about the grants or if you want it to be. You know, you could get I guess what I would say is you could get around it by saying that that needs to be something that's addressed in the applications, and then the agency needs to have a tool in addition to conferring with and if I might if I may I would actually clean that language up a little and say I would say agency of education secretary that's interchangeable as Mr. Damary knows but I would actually have the consulting be with the mental health or the commissioner of mental health, including the trauma person because the way it reads right now it almost like precludes other people from mental health being part of that. So, that's like tiny, that's tiny, but like, I think it does it just, it just will help for logistics and clarification. So I think we agree we agree with an equity lens. That's kind of what we do with all of our grants now. So, we're happy to, you know, put that in. Okay. And we'll, you know, again with all these additions, most of which I think sound more than fine. So the more I read into them some of them will shift this I think and make, make things stronger and clearer and more comprehensive so. So thank you miss Finn, I think what we'll end up doing is, Jim you have enough to go on right now there really aren't, you know, we could. I'm not going to, you know, draw a line in the sand over programs and things like that but let's keep them in there for now programs and the word education. And we'll look at them again in a new copy when we come back to this on as a committee on Tuesday. Okay, yeah. Thank you so much. Thank you, I appreciate it. Committee so we have a secretary who share with us for another 20 minutes. And I'm sure the leaders have hopefully had an opportunity to just review again h106 the community school spills. I don't know if anybody else has questions but I'll kick it off if you don't mind. Dr. Boucher. A couple of things that you've raised, I just want to go back to so that we can have the best information and before we make some decisions. One of them is the question of the funding, you know, you've pointed out as has the chair of a house said a few times in other conversations all these schools and we all know schools are getting a lot of money. Schools are, you know, in our literacy bill right now is talking about or has a big component helping schools use money toward literacy and so in that kind of spirit. I just want to talk through a little bit more. The two options that were being presented here with one is, you know, using this S or set aside fund to grant things out another option would be to somehow again have the agency identify those schools that need these services the most and or these programs the most and sort of work with them to create these programs given the extra given given the amount of money that they've received so if you want to just say say something about that that'd be great. Yeah, thank you. Thank you Mr chair and by the way I am very sorry that I have the hard stop at three I'm really sorry that are it's someone it's a DC person we got to talk to so I apologize. Clicked. Um, I think it's a great question. So, um, I think it again has to do with the timing but then your question raise another question for me so here's here's what I think will happen as it is now. So, so right now the eligibility criteria are very broad. So, for instance, I think the eligibility criterion one is 40% or more free and reduced lunch and I just want to remind or or or educate the committee if folks already know that the average student level so it's a little bit different but it's pretty much the you know it's it's it's in the ballpark of student level frl eligibility is 38 to 40% so right there you basically said who is eligible is you know half of our schools. And then you've said eligibility criterion two is comprehensive or equity supports. So comprehensive supports, I think works if we're talking if what the committee would like is a more targeted outreach to schools because those are the bottom 5% if you will in terms of our S estate plan. So in terms of academic achievement and the rest of our quality education quality standards. Equity though identification for equity supports is a is a very big list as well of our schools because we're not doing a great job as we all know around issues of equity with our historically marginalized students which is why we're having a lot of these conversations. So, and I think the reason I'm getting into some of these details is because I think that really gets at your question, Mr chair which is, what is the best approach to take so right now if it's, if it's a grant program that these eligible schools can apply for it's kind of going to probably look like like our grant programs usually look and so you know there are a lot of entities that will be able to apply for it and we will be, you know, we will have to follow what is stipulated in the statute about how to actually select those schools. Those districts on behalf of schools. Another option would be, we actually use those eligibility criteria and there I would actually recommend that those get tightened up to actually come up with a smaller subset of schools, districts and schools, and we could do outreach to them to say, here's this community school initiative. There you go initiative, instead of program. Here's what community schools are. You know here the supports you can have. You know, we're we're ready to work with you on that. But then again for me that's the real timing piece because I don't think we're going to be ready to do as an agency I don't think we're going to be ready to do that until next session. So it really is I know I'm, I'm kind of like talking about all of these different concerns but they're all interrelated. So, um, the other piece I would say just while I have the floor even though I'm kind of I'm giving you everything all at once is, I think the needs assessment as it's actually talked about in the bill is right it is the correct level of needs assessment that you would need to be successful at a community schools initiative. I really, really am concerned. I just don't think that districts will be able to pull that needs assessment off and time per September 21, even if they're using their recovery planning, which if I were in their shoes that's what I would do. But that again had a really different lens right it was really on those three different recovery areas which is related to what they would need in the needs assessment. So I think that's something to think through and then the other piece I would say is that one of the challenges that we're facing and I'm really glad that Senator Alliance just popped on is that community school initiatives, they're only going to work if we can if we actually have the services available to actually like bring them together and coordinate them and so I just worry that we are putting a lot of stock in a community schools initiative, and at the end of the day what we really need to be doing with state dollars is to actually build up that infrastructure and make sure that there are mental health services available that there are trauma informed practices that districts have access to. So again, you know in a nutshell it's still about the timing for us, but I do, I do see and I want to honor that I see the committee has listened and you know has taken seriously some of the things that we brought forth and I really appreciate that and I just want to say that. I just don't know how many. I don't know how many I'm not getting a strong sense from the field that there are many that would take this opportunity this coming summer, I know, I think, I think Superintendent Castle would, and I think I've spoken with him actually. So I think he actually would be very interested in it. And maybe that's okay. Maybe that's, you know, maybe that's okay. Is there. I want this to go, you know, this I wanted to be a success I wanted to not be messy, if you will, I know everybody has a lot on their plates right now and, you know, so I'm hearing from some that. To have this needs to have three years we've got to get the three year thing going, because if not it's not going to fly you know the three years of funding. But is there sort of a, and also I completely respect the agency has a lot of stuff going on schools have a lot of things going on this we want to have helped them, we don't want it to be, you know, in some ways. And we don't, we don't want just two schools to apply and we can arrange it so that you know, two schools that are interested can move forward without even this going forward right now but is there a happy medium in this Dr. In other words, could we say that these assessments are due. I tend to, you know, I share your concern here, you know, September is right around the corner schools summer just transitioning back you know all these things. Could we say that they're doing January, you know, does that make a difference in any way, where say they're doing January until instead of the following September it just gives an extra teachers are back people are having meetings people have an opportunity to sort of see what is an action in their schools and kind of go from there I don't know. Yeah, please. Yeah, first of all, um, it's not a grant program is written. Right, right, right. Our grant program. Yeah. Basically the agencies and powers make determinations about how the funds are used. Second, the needs assessment isn't by September one. The needs assessment is not due by September one is the first year of grant funding is used to do the grant, the needs assessment. So you have the whole year under this language. I think that needs to thank you for that. I think that needs to be clarified because my understanding when I read this was similar to Mr. to senator campions. So, because one of the suggestions I was going to have was to actually really call out that the first year is for planning, and that would really get at this issue. And we do. So I think the distinction might be whether this is a grant competition versus a grant like we have to actually give them a grant to give them the dollars so there's a little bit of we can't just give them a check. That's how state dollars work. So, so we do have to award them a grant. I think perhaps a Mr. Damary what you're talking about is it's not set up right now to be a competitive grant program that there, there would be selected schools although I think that that's not clear in terms of how it's written right now that there would be a particular subset of schools that would automatically qualify for these funds. As I just said, in my testimony, the way the eligibility criteria are set right now that would. It would basically be, you know, probably 75% of districts and schools, which there's not enough for them to all have 110 million dollars by three years, even if we took the entire set aside. And I'm noticing that that the ability is wide. That's true. But there was language added in the last draft about how the agency is to select the recipient. And that's on page eight of the bill. So that is for us, hugely broad, and we would need to have some indication from the committee about, like, you know, how we would be able to do that. So that is for us, hugely broad, and we would need to have some indication from the committee about, like, how does the committee define need, like, like what I'm not talking specifically just at a conceptual level. So for instance, as an example, would need to be proposals or schools that are that are documenting that they have a significant need for trauma informed practices. And that's why they're looking for a community schools. Adventure. Would it be would need be based on population demographics or, you know, just to throw this out as one example, you know, emergency. I mean, it's such it's right in the news right now, right. But like waiting lists in emergency rooms for getting youth on mental health services. Would it be based on, you know, proportion of population that is not getting dental care. I mean, like, it's, it's so huge that we would need some. I would request that we have guidance then from the general assembly on like, what are the parameters around need that. The committee wants us to use. Does that make sense. Because just to say need is so broad. And I guess I was thinking that an easier way to do that would be to restrict the eligibility criteria from the get go. And then just not, and then just do kind of like, here's the money. Yes, you have to apply because you have to say what you're going to do with the money, and you need to have a report do at the end of the granting period, but it's not really. It's not really a review. We have many grants like that where there isn't like, there's not a review. It's not a competition in other words, does that I hope this is making sense to folks. I think it is. It is. It's maybe one of the things that would be helpful, Jim, just to review for the committee, if the bill were to go into effect as written right now. You would just take us through what schools would have to do the first year, second year and third year. Okay. And then there will be an interaction with the with AOA. So, what the bill says is that the first year of finding should be used to conduct the needs and asset assessment of the school to determine what it's necessary to develop a community school program. To implement during the second and third years of finding then will be the implementation phase. So first year is in each needs an asset assessment. Second two years is implementation of an action plan. So the school would have let's say between September in a school that the agency has identified as needing this, or really warranting these kinds of services. And that would be identified, you know, sometime in the summer and then schools in that first year, let's say September to July, September to June, they would be identifying, that's when they would be doing their planning and things like that. Yeah, if you don't have a coordinate you hire one. Yeah, I'll be one from staff. Yeah, the first task would be to do that needs an asset assessment. Okay. Okay. I missed that so thanks Jim. Yeah, no, no, and I appreciate that. I don't know. That's all be honest here I mean there've been a lot of things going back and forth we've been on the floor, you know we just, you know, passing a number of different bills, things are changing and so that review is very helpful. Yeah, I simplified that because it both says to if you've done an asset assessment in the last three years that basically meets the same criteria, you have to do it again. Yeah. So really if in just the last couple of minutes, Dr. shake. The big lift for the agency would be identifying the schools that need, I mean, if it had, if we had kept it as a grant process, going through grants or going through proposals, all those kinds of things but sort of shifting it where you're identifying the schools that need it the most. This is that that's where the, and I'm not saying it's not but that's where that the big lift is for the agency. It's not a big lift. I mean if the, and again I'm going to go back to that so it would be a big lift right now. Yeah, as because basically, you know, with with minimal hyperbole every school is probably going to be able to be eligible. Yeah. And so, so then it kind of becomes. Okay, so so then we have to craft some way to select them and that's kind of where I was saying like we need some guidance on that. So we can actually, or if the committee can actually maybe take a minute to think about who do you want to get these funds and think about the eligibility criteria that way I think that would be a much more palatable lift for us. That sounds great that sounds like that would leave us in a good spot so for Tuesday and I know there are people watching this who are really dedicated to this bill. I can work with folks over the weekend and bring it to the committee on Tuesday and say hey here's some here it this would tighten the criteria, we would give to the agency so as Dr Boucher is saying, you know instead of looking at all of the schools in the state basically we could narrow it down and that would. I mean just make sense on a lot of different levels. And I think like that's a great spot to leave this, Mr MRA. You're clarifying before, Mr Chair leaves. I think you mentioned that you get a lot more schools. When you include equity supports. So if we took it to be the schools with the favor some more poverty and comprehensive supports would that be narrow enough. I think it was and absolutely because then it would probably be pretty not solely but pretty mutually exclusive so I didn't bring that up, because I do really. I do really want to honor the equity work that needs to be done in our state and you certainly just heard that from this fan. Yeah, so logistically. Yes, if you remove that as a criterion, it would, it would absolutely shrink that pool. I still though think that setting the free and reduced lunch at the average about the average free and reduced lunch percentage is, is, is, is not the way to go. I think you can actually, you know, say something I mean for instance comprehensive is the is the 5%. I'm not sure you would want to actually like completely make the, the top 5%. You know, the proportions of free free Maria's lunch in the state because that might be too restrictive but you could say like the top quarter for something like that. Yeah, and then you can play around with the and or for those eligibility. You know that that second eligibility criteria is 5%. It's it's the bottom 5% in terms of performance for schools. If you were to go to the FRL, you could think about and then think about like whether you want those both to be criteria or just one. Okay. So, but this sounds great. This sounds like we're in a good spot. Mr. DeMarie and I can talk. We'll also connect with people over the weekend committee feels good with that and we'll bring back some language that will hopefully tighten this up. I think we'll put everybody in a good place to move forward. Dr. Boucher. Thank you very much for coming in. Good luck in your next meetings and we will look forward to sharing this language with you. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Is it the weekend yet? Not yet. I know you're probably all feeling the same. Have a great rest of the day. Thanks you too. Okay, committee. This feels really much better. I feel like if we can work to tighten up some of, first of all, I think Ms. Finn's language was great. Very solid really, really helps advance the bill will tighten up the language around eligibility so that the agency can can really get their their heads and hands around who most needs this in our state, these kinds of services. And I think that's that's a win-win and then Senator Perslick, I would still like your witness if you'd be so kind of come in on Tuesday probably to weigh in on on this next draft of a bill please go ahead. I wondered if I could ask the question. Yeah. They do this work they're working with some schools to do kind of community school programs for using that word. And so can I ask that question now are you. Yeah, please go for it. So, and I did an email to Jim about it. But I guess this is question to Jim or just to the committee so this is a, this is where it says that they have to hire the purpose uses a fund on page 10. So, where it says hire a coordinator. So the B lines 12 through 17. So at the end of that, it says augment work already being performed to develop an implemented community school program. So that's the kind of work that they're already doing to their question was, would a school be able to apply for a grant to do that work, or is the way this language is written this is work that the coordinator would do, not the school. Basically, is that last part of that. This be is all one sentence I think so at the end of that sentence where it says augment work already being performed. Is that being augmented by the coordinator or by the school. And is my question clear. Well, you got question clear the language is broad. It doesn't limit to being done by the school or just by the coordinator, it's just talking about what being done. And arguments are very broad words so. I'm not sure the answer to your question but so how I would read it. Other stuff in here isn't stuff that the coordinator does because it says higher communities coordinator, develop then develop and implement a community school program. That's just what the school is doing and the coordinators is part of that but I just, I wanted to make sure that it's not the intent to whoever came up with this line which wasn't that the coordinator in collaboration with this leadership team is developing and implementing the program. Which I guess now that I said a lot, probably nobody thought that that it's really the whole school doing it, not the court, not the school coordinator. But according there is, is the question is there to coordinate right so that according to implementation, but involved, I would imagine, large parts of school staff to implement a program like this. Horsak, are you concerned that not everybody that the process may in some way not be as inclusive or. Yeah, the concern was like some people, some schools already doing this kind of work. They haven't hired a coordinator. And I guess, I guess I don't know if they care if they hire coordinator now but I guess they wouldn't want to want to. They're doing this work kind of as nonprofits, consulting to the school almost. Okay, and they're wondering is now only the coordinator can do that work or could the school still team up with these nonprofits that are supporting them and use the grant money to do that. Oh, I see. Okay. That's a great question. So, yeah, okay, go ahead, Jim. Yeah, I didn't appreciate that angle of your question so I appreciate the explanation. So this line was just say you have to hire one. Or doesn't it one from so it doesn't contemplate having a consultant doing this work it envisions it being embedded in school as an employee. So, like when it says anything that's in collaboration with this light based leadership team, that's not the school. That's the coordinator. And so that this, hey, we're augmenting work already being. Yeah, we're working collaboration with this episode team. Correct. Yeah. Center personally, are you going to go ahead. Sorry. No, you go first please. Maybe it's broad enough to where because it's this whole section is what the school uses funds for so I'm sure as long as they hire a coordinator, if they had other money to work with, you know, others. I'm just the way I read it that they could use the school could use that money. They still have to hire a coordinator, but with the coordinator and the site based leadership team, if they wanted to work with a nonprofit that helps schools. Yeah, nothing that precludes that in this program. Yeah. Yeah, and the other thing that just say no center person I don't know if you have a bad connection but you're pausing periodic you're freezing periodically. Right. So Jim said it doesn't. Nothing precludes that from happening in this bill did you hear that paper. But what I'm interested in is, for example, you know, the agency a lot of times will contract things out. Are you looking center personally for a nonprofit for school to be able to just basically maybe not hire a non coordinator because it doesn't work for them and work in another organization. Or do you want to are you not trying to alter the coordinator role and hire. I think hiring a coordinator makes sense. I don't know what others might think. But you know, it seems like we are testing my clear that the coordinator is potential. Right. Could they augment the coordinator. Yeah, he's doing and there's that and maybe when when we hear from them on Tuesday, we'll hear if they do have a different opinion, but I'm not sure. Yes, I am unstable today. Okay. You're not but your internet is. Okay. I think we've we're getting somewhere I think by Tuesday, we'll have some additional language to tighten this up. And hopefully be able to advance it on Wednesday. Senator person before we take a quick five minute break you want to tell us about your visit to approach. Yeah, they had a lot of questions. I wasn't really ready for the details of the bill. I couldn't remember it. School school construction. Okay. H four six, they voted it out seven zeros or seven in there. So they, they were, and they're going to take our amendment and swap out that section with our language. So they had a lot of questions about the inventory and the assessment and when they were being done and who was doing them and how much they cost and what exactly was included and when I, and when I came in and had a question, you had all discussion about rate on. They didn't ask me about that but they, you know, they had a lot of questions but in the end. I just said you can read the language. But they passed it out. Great. Thank you for that. And I do believe we may be seeing an amendment on raid on next week. So I don't know if you if Senator Pearson has been in contact with you. We may be seeing that with three good two events. Okay committee, let's just come back at 315 and go through S 16 and possibly wrap up for that.