 All right, now we can talk with Emily Simmons general counsel about the bill that we brought her in for be asked her to come in for, which was s 16, you realize we're dealing with 1613 1415 and 16, which has had our heads been spinning just a little bit, and wanted to get your feedback. A presentation from Wendy Geller that dealt with a lot of the. A lot of data information and representative Brady is is kind of being our lead on this so she was going to be working with, I believe, just to Carol us and I think it was you Jay correct. I think it was Jeff Fanon but I did write the representative Brady instead of she need help with the expansion expulsion language but I really didn't want to help with the data collection language I trust the AOE and what they know about that. Okay. So we're going to review to she's going to review that and get the work with Jim damoray to get that language sorted out in the bill. And I guess we were just going to ask you a few questions, and why I think that I asked for you, unless you had a presentation presentation now. The task force in section two. We weren't wondering where the time I was wondering where the task force came from. And your thoughts on the task force. Sure I'd be happy to give the context that I'm familiar with, especially as it originated in the other body. Yes, so there were two ideas for a bill and a bill that was introduced as a 16. The bill as introduced focused on that data that is collected and that maybe should be newly collected by the agency of education around discipline in schools and around protected class of students and the disparate impacts on those students and discipline. The agency separately from the development of a 16 by its sponsors submitted some ideas about changes that we feel are warranted for serious and I'd say truncated study to recommend legislative action to you about our statutes on suspension and the students. So, there's two complimentary I'd say, but two sources of the language you have in your bill now before your committee started making any changes. So those were the data elements and the study of data through a task force. Coincidentally, the agency's proposal to institute a task force to make recommendations for very targeted changes at what we actually do what we actually require in the statutes for what happens to students are subject to discipline. Now they all all that those two concepts live together happily under the roof of the 16 that you have before you know, so that task force that the secretary recommended what had a sort of. I came up with the idea thinking that there was some low hanging fruit in our discipline statutes and it's probably way past time to look seriously at prohibiting suspension and expulsion for all students except for some very, very narrow categories of student behavior. And I was primarily focused on the idea that through the gun three schools act which is a federal piece of legislation that we have to retain the ability to expel a student who brings serious weapon to school under certain circumstances. So starting from there. The idea was, there's probably not much else that we after working with this task force would identify. This will be legal grounds for suspension or expulsion, but that we had some stakeholder work to do we weren't ready as the agency to come with legislative language that we'd want you to pass tomorrow, but that should be subject to a good transparent stakeholder process and a report to you with valuable information and a recommendation. The secretary was asking to choose a task force to work with from among a list of characteristics such as please include special educators, families, teachers, administrators, groups who do social justice work in schools. And it was to that level of detail that our proposed language over on the Senate side started with, you know, secretary work with people who fit these characteristics, come back to us next year very quickly with legislative language about that the language is still in the bill, several tasks and we can go through those if you want to but they were the real, they were the real doing aspects, as opposed to the data. So that's why I know it was a point of discussion in your committee last week why is this task force look different why aren't the names of organizations and their executive directors, or designee used. And who is the agency's proposal to rather than name the people we lovingly call the usual suspects the V's to have the ability to look more broadly at individuals who might not be associated with those advocacy organizations who have an interest in that stakeholder the Senate Education Committee changed the language a little bit when they put the data ideas and the statutory changes ideas together. Do you have a problem with it being the way it is a little and it's nuanced and how I would say this to you and I think you know me well enough to know that this just comes from a friendly place of observation. And I'm not pushing hard on this but we have a habit in our community of legislators and the field agency the V's of naming really hard working advocacy groups to every task force that we come up with every committee every study group. And I have wondered, as I have done more of this work, how that looks to folks who don't regularly work in this room, this room, or within those advocacy groups, whether that looks like good government best government practice to name specific groups, or or to be in the habit of always naming the same specific groups. So I was excited when the language survived through the Senate where just more general groups of people based on their interest or their work or their expertise generally were named because I thought maybe we can improve that this idea works, and that the agency can be trusted to pull in a diverse group of people to work with, improve through the stakeholder process and writing a report that that that can work. But if that's not how you're comfortable doing that I'm not going to push. Questions. Okay. MIDI, do you want to keep it the way it is or do you want to change it back to where the Senate did it where the Secretary was doing the appointments. Do you want to keep it that we are having the groups appoint someone remind me how the, the list language, whose recommendation that was, I'm sorry I've lost track of the conversation because it came up in conversation because we noticed that the Secretary was appointing everybody and it was a different way of doing it and we went wow that's really different, but we didn't ask why we just went ahead and did it. Yeah. I prepared for today by going back and listening to your conversations last week. It was while you had the ACLU in and before that testimony someone else that day from the best Institute said we would love to be involved. And then ACLU said we would love to be involved and then you had the conversation about well let's put them in there. Yeah. So then we started making our list. Yes. Again, I always look at outcomes. So I, you know, I would tend to look at what skills and knowledge that people have to have to be on the task force to effectively have the outcome that that is desired. So, that's kind of how I would look at it. Yeah. I would still air towards where we have it spelled out more. I do still worry overall it's too many. It's a giant task force and if you see how we're struggling as a committee to get things worked out. But I think some of the specificity in here, maybe beyond the V is which I think we need some of their just institutional knowledge and expertise on some of this but our, we're naming some folks that are not you sort of usual suspects on you know, the best project the Vermont family network. And I think that was sort of justice group that that I was hoping we might include like I think there's some representation here the Vermont school counselors that are not our kind of typical suspects on all the task courses but are going to have enough of like what you're you're talking about representative Austin of some background and expertise on this that they come and we're asking for, especially if we don't change the date, really quick turnaround. So there's hopefully a little bit less need to. There's something gained by people who are used to working in this process and can then hopefully do it a bit faster than if it's a more sort of citizen based group. My other concern about it would be that if it's a much more sort of broadly sort of citizen based group that the AOE is putting together is, does it drop from people who have very particular individual experiences that then that's their reason for wanting to do it which is a good thing. However, if people are really narrow about like this happened to my kid I saw this one thing in one school. Is it bringing together more anecdotal experience but doesn't give us the kind of breadth of knowledge that particularly I think there's, there's some really interesting thoughtful people included in this list. I'm worried about how long list is still representative James. You know, I'm for this time around, you know, I think convinced by what Brett Brady said but I am really intrigued by Emily's comments about you know best practices and the creation of these lists that we always do and whether we always tend to go to the other aspects and I just I want to give that some thought in a broader, in a broader sense. It's really interesting to me it's not something I thought about the only thing I've been able to crystallize and my first few years in the legislature was that feeling a perpetual shortcoming about trying to come up with the perfect list, and how it never seems, you know, it kind of never seems like we're really getting there. So you know maybe there is a totally different way we need to go about this. I'm not sure right this very second is the time because this is sort of a more interesting list than our usual list. This is what would it look like if we did like a compromise if we had some of these spelled out, and we left a certain number of spots for the agency to fill does that. I understand the concern you're expressing Emily and I'm new to all of it and clearly Task Force are like, we create a lot of tasks. I have a concern about how many task forces we create but if this one was populated sort of in two ways with us, putting some particular expertise there and giving the AOE some discretion to field it with, or does that just sort of make both groups unhappy. I don't know what does that seem like. Yeah, good question. I'll take it as a question, I could have taken it as just like an interesting thought and not it but I'll jump. You could I could imagine that you state a number not more than, and, and the group shall, you know there are some of those groups that share characteristics like they represent school administrators or they record represent community groups you could try to bucketize and give a maximum number for the whole task force you could bring it down from 20 and say there must be at least one who represents each of the buckets. But if I say anymore I'll get myself a piece of drafting homework so I'll stop there. I'm just thinking. You read my mind can dangerously close. I might have crossed the line. I'm my Simmons would you mind drafting some that might take into account what representative ready saying. Yes, I'll do that because I know that you all will just absolutely go after it. It'll give you time to respond to so there's very little pressure on me just edited to death. Yeah, just quickly, again working having worked in the schools and looking at the work of the Howard Center or NFI. You know their work worked. I mean the kids they work within my school and their behavior improved, and they were able to acquire the skills so again, you know I'm not saying those agencies but I think we need to be looking at what works, you know what has some track record of working. When it's implemented, I think Patty Tomesha said about restorative practices if it's done with fidelity. I remember she, she really emphasize that point. So, again, you know we I think we all want to do what's going to work for these kids because otherwise they'll be in jail. You know if they don't learn how to regulate their emotions or delay gratification or manager behavior they're headed for real trouble so you know hopefully we want the people on the passport that can advise us as what works to help these kids. There's. Okay. Representative Brady, it would be great if you could. I had a task. Pull that together do you want Jesse to try to set that up for you, and it might mean a little time out of committee. Yeah, she started an email chain and we'll get going on it but I wonder, do we need to involve Jim and all of them or should I get a few things worked out I'm worried there's a few. It's going to be a more than one step process and so I don't want to waste Jim's time, or not pull Jim and until we're all everybody else is. I generally find it really helpful to have him in the room. Okay, because he hasn't very often has an ability to just go boom. And he's definitely helped me in the at those times when just kind of going off like this he's an ability to sometimes pull it back together and put it into sentences. So, certainly in the new punishment instead of suspension could be you have to figure out how to make all the different changes of this bill work together instead of any expulsions or suspensions that will be right that on the board 100 times. Yeah, so great. That's only for legislators. There's also been a little punishment for Emily Simmons to when we asked her and then we just completely ignore it. Representative Austin. I just wanted to ask Jay. I think I might have misunderstood and I think I spoke to a representative chair web about this in terms of suspensions and expulsions when you send a child home, because they, they're not behaving they're being disruptive you have their parents come and get them. That call. If it's if you're doing it for disciplinary reasons and it's not part of the kids, the child's plan. Yeah, a suspension. It is, because you're, you're, it's a suspension, a cessation of educational services. So you're taking away that kids fate for us for a period of time they're free and appropriate public education access for a period of time. Okay, a lot of people try to get around that but I really think it's going to call a spade a spade. Thank you. Okay. Yes, please. I had a request and I really don't mean for the agency to double team this bill. I knew that you were asking me to come in to answer some specific questions so I didn't prepare testimony, but I did give the bill and other scrub and there's an aspect that I would request that you may be this you've thought about it and this is exactly what you need to require and I'm just unclear on page 12, which is section four, specifically on lines nine through 15. You have a direction for the Secretary of Education and the State Board of Education to directly incorporate the task forces recommendations for practice changes and for new data collection. Absolutely. So that the chain of authority is that the task force makes a decision about a recommendation or a new data collection and the agency and the state board are supposed to do that. Period. That's highly unusual that you invest task force with the authority to direct a state agency without that coming back to you. You can always see a report and find it very persuasive and then direct as it's fine, but as the agency's general counsel I just have to protest that really, that really big step on our authority is state agencies operating under the law. So right now we have shall incorporate. That's strong language. And on page online 14 I have a feeling that the districts might also object because we would then be required to require them to report new data that is not current practice and I'm not saying we would never change our current practice we just usually would take our direction from the general assembly. So they need to present it with. Okay homework. What would you say. I actually would recommend that you strike section four. Well you need section for a so it's section for B. That you would strike in its entirety. So it leaves it with. It says shall collect and distribute to the task force. But does it say anything about what you do with it. So next section for is where the agency is collecting and distributing information to the task force, I would recommend you keep that. Yeah, but then I would recommend you strike lines nine through 15. Is there a place where it gets reported back. Someone has to look at it. Emily would you mind repeating why you would recommend striking section be there. What that language does in the shall adopt and shall require and everything in between is just related describing those two actions. Gives the task force the authority to change the data that's required for the field to report. Change the rules of the state board of education, change the internal practices of the agency of education. So there is a report. There is a report. Page 10 lines 16 through 21 and it goes on to the next pages is where you describe the report back from the task force to you. Okay, so you don't know where that language came from. Can tell you I didn't ask for it. Okay. I wonder if it's appropriate I asked about this earlier and we talked about what Emily came in. Section six around the suspension of students suspension or expulsion. That's on page 13 Emily. I just recommended that the language be amended there to say that that would also apply to schools that are receiving public dollars in other words private schools that are receiving public dollars. Currently it only says public education. And so I know the committee wanted to want to talk to you a little bit about that. Okay, so we have two important statutes on discipline, and they don't treat approved independent schools the same. One of them that I don't know if you've discussed it or not is just about discipline generally and it's 1161 a. It describes a policy that every district and every approved independent school has to have and it describes the minimum elements of the policy. That I think in the most pertinent part requires some description of minimum due process that will be afforded to students before they are suspended. And that might even be as as you all talked about earlier just the student leaving school for for the rest of the day that would count. So the policy should articulate what due process the student is entitled to rather than, you know, the statute doesn't set the standard for due process the school does. So the approved independent schools are required to have a policy that complies with 1161 which has a lot of pertinent information and I would encourage you to review that. So 1162 is where the minimum amount of due process is stated. That's only for public schools. So that requires a public school to seek the approval of the school board for suspension and more than 10 days. And that's where you get the ability to suspend a student up to 90 days and then we start calling it an expulsion for 90 days or until the end of the year whichever is longer. And the behaviors for the behaviors that can cause a student to be suspended or expelled are outlined for public schools in 1162 and I know you've looked at that because your bills amending 1162 it's adding any section on to the end of that. If the question is whether you have authority issues recommending yeah I think you do. The distinction of students were publicly funded at approved independent schools. I think that's just totally a policy call, but I'll point out that every approved independent school has to have this overriding discipline policy. And the policy applies to all of its students not the publicly funded students only. Anything else let's say representative conlon. So Emily just just to clarify on that point. We have the authority to just say private schools without saying publicly funded. There are approved independent schools, as opposed to saying only those students who are publicly funded and an approved independent school. Yes. Okay, representative James. So I guess I'm not. I guess I'm not clear on whether we feel like we would need to hear. Quickly from independent schools on. I feel like we would. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great. I've not given you a small task. And it will probably likely it would require missing a meeting. Giving your time given time. If it would help Aaron, I'd be happy to follow up on the private school or private schools. I support, I support it philosophically, but I also don't want it to derail the bill. But I'll, I'll reach out to the head of the organization. I think we know what the answer will be. That'd be awesome. Thank you. Yeah. And would you like someone else to do you think represent a common you could also just help represent a Brady along the way on this one. Just to be a backup. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. I wasn't sure as long as we have Emily here, whether. She could provide any feedback on my sort of overarching. The overarching concern I raised earlier, which is that. Nationally, it seems as though LGBTQ students also suffer. It seems as though we have a lot of information. We have a lot of information. We have a lot of information about gender discipline and suspensions. And that doesn't seem to be addressed in this bill and whether we should and ought to. And how we could do that in a succinct way. We talked about that a little bit earlier, Emily. I don't know if you were watching our conversation earlier, but. It seems as though national stats bear that out. I don't know what we need. I remember it went to update her on what, when the Geller had said about that too. Unless you already know. But her concerns were what are the challenges were in it. Yeah. So if I'm summarizing correctly, what Dr. Geller said was that we are under act one or when we collect information on hazing and bullying incidents, for example. We have a lot of information on what happened during that incident. So if somebody was called a slur or hazed or bullied for being gender nonconforming. We have that information as part of the. What happened. Whereas if a student who's, I think I'm understanding this correctly. Whereas if a student who is, you know, LGBTQ, for example, or gender nonconforming is suspended or has a gender nonconforming problem, they don't necessarily have that information about them. And is it like a, you know, is a privacy problem. Yes. It seems so important to get out to me, but I don't, I don't know how we do that. I'm not aware of any data collection at the agency where other than the school climate survey potentially. Where it is collected as a, to identify themselves as LGBTQ plus or none of the above. Right. I don't, I question whether we want to do that. Yeah. I question whether we want the, the state to have that database. Yes. But that's not your question. So I want to respect your question. Well, but I want to respect your response. So that, I mean, yeah. So anyway. So I do know, and it sounds like this is also what Dr. Geller told you that when we are working the data collection about HHB, he's saying harassment and bullying, that the information about the target is not the collection, that the behavior is defined as harassment as opposed to bullying. That the data collection is not the target. That the data collection is motivated by the protected class status of the target. And the data collection is totally focused on the harassment, not the harassing. We have processes that are focused on the target and making them whole in the HHB. Policy and procedures, but the data collection is its own animal. And the data collection, so we abide by the feds rules for what they want. And we, as a general rule, do not collect more information at the agency than we need, either because we're required to buy you by the federal government or buy one of our programs. And I think that's good ethical data practice when these are expert on this, but I think. Thought experiment. I think it's scary when flip around in 50 years, the people who work in government now, change their identity according to how you want to imagine the thought experiment and ask yourself, do you want those people having all this data about our students that we don't know that we need? Yeah. Yeah. Maybe we need it, but I just always ask myself that question. To make you feel better not to leave you out there hanging when the agency proposed to take some action to quickly work with us, take holder group and come back to you next year with new language for the expulsion and suspension statute. We really didn't feel we needed to see any more data to know it was time to make those changes. Didn't need to see any more data to be convinced that we should reduce the behaviors for which a student can face the exclusionary discipline. That's been the theme for us that we want to have, we want the public to have the data they feel they need for accountability and for advocacy and all, all of that good work. But when it comes to changing the statutes and really bringing down the level at which we can suspend a student or raising the bar for when we can suspend a student, we didn't need any more data to be convinced that it was, it was time to do something. I think that's a great idea. Would it, would it just put this on the radar to add? I mean, I know findings. You know, just to add a finding. I think that's what findings are for, right? I think that's a great idea. I love findings. I know, I know not many people like findings, but anyway. All right. Thanks. There might be something in the, in the. Exclusionary edition of the discipline support. That you could find. Okay.