 Welcome to Senate Education, uh, Tuesday, April 25th. We're going to jump in to Senator Gulick's bill, S132, and then, uh, move on for about an hour and a half or so on 483-461. Ms. Lanias, uh, Ed will wrap up with-with additional testimony that we talked about on, uh, the amendment from Boer Yang and others having to do with bullying and harassment. It has to be one point that we need to finish this week so we can move 461. With that, Mr. Schauber, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. Um, I'm going to ask Senator Gulick, would you just remind us what the bill-what we're trying to do here? Do you mind, or would you rather have, uh- I'm happy to do it. It has to do with, um, signatures to get on the ballot for school board and how there seems to be a discrepancy. It's kind of like a technical fix for some of the smaller communities. Right, in rural communities you were saying they had to get as many as some of our bigger communities. Actually more. I need to get 50 in Burlington to get on the school board. Yeah. And my compatriot here, Mark Schauber, has to get 60. And the population of his community is a fraction of what-of where I live. So, um, it seems like it's a problem that needs to be rectified. Yep. Mr. Schauber, we ended up, uh, one day when we were going through this bill, we had started to hear some witnesses who kind of expressed a little bit of concern. I don't remember. I think what it was has something to do with depending on the district and the size of the district. So maybe you can just help us get to a good point on this. Sure. Um, first of all, thank you so much for having me in to testify. Um, and especially allowing me to do it remotely. My, uh, my district's annual meeting is tonight. Um, and I would have, would have been tough for me to get back here. Um, if I'd been up in Montpelier. So I appreciate it. Um, as a river valleys. Um, a unified school district that's made up of Dover and Wardsboro. Um, in Wyndham County. Um, so, well, by way of just a quick introduction, um, I'm Mark Schauber and I am a board member in river valley school district. I'm also, um, the representative, um, from river valleys or a representative from river valleys on the Wyndham central, um, supervisor union board. Um, I'm also a member of the Vermont school board association board from Wyndham County. Um, and some of you may know me from the work that I did as the executive director for the coalition for Vermont student equity. Um, the work on people waiting and act 2127. Um, last year. Um, so, um, Uh, I apologize. I made some notes for myself and I'm just pulling them up. Um, so, um, I do want to say that today I'm here in my capacity as a citizen and voter of Dover as well as a member of the river valleys. Um, unified school district board. Um, and basically asking you to make what I believe is a pretty simple fix. Um, to, uh, title 16 chapter 11, Which went through major rewrite as you know, especially a chair campaign last session, um, which resulted in act 176. Um, who wants some of the sticks introduced some new governance models to chapter 11. Um, which I think may have been in use prior to the rewrite, but weren't actually codified in statute. Um, and I just want to say briefly, because I've been asked a number of times that the sections of chapter 11 that are referred to an S 132. Um, would only affect school districts that elect their board members by Australian ballot. Um, those that elect them from the floor, um, at their annual meetings, don't go through a petition process. So they wouldn't be affected by the passage of 132 at all. Um, prior to act 176, the standard for any person who wanted to be a candidate for a school board position was to get 30 signatures or 1% of registered voters in their town or district on the petition. Act 176 left this standard intact for all boards that fit under the proportional model, which includes most districts in the state. Essentially those districts of proportional ones are ones that are single town districts or ones where each member town elects their own representatives. Um, act 176 introduced the modified at large model. Um, there's also the at large model and I'm not sure whether that was in statute prior to chapter 11. Um, rewrite or not the modified at large model is one in which each member town has a set number of representatives, but the entire district. So the registered voters from all the towns vote for all members regardless of which town. The candidates are from an at large district differs in that all members can come from any member town. They're not a set number per town. Um, and again, all voters vote, um, for all members from my district, the river valley school district, um, which I said includes Dover and Wordsboro. Um, we were established in 2017 is an act 46 merger. Um, and we had a proportional board with proportions based on census data with reapportion and reapportionment to be done every after every decennial census. So based on the 2010 data, which was used for our initial number of years, each of our two towns had three representatives. Um, and they were only elected by the voters in their town. Um, so, um, the, with the 2020 census data, um, Dover's population went up from 1124 to 1798 and increase of 674. Wordsboro's population went down from 900 to 869, a reduction of 31 as a result. Um, and, and because of our articles of agreement that were approved in 2017, we were supposed to reapportion to a district, which would have given us four representatives from Dover and two from Wordsboro. Um, the majority of our board didn't want to do this. So we started looking at alternate options and the board chose to change to a modified at large model where we would permanently have three members from each town, regardless of the population, and they would all be elected by the entire district. And during the discussions of this change, one of the issues that came up was that in this new model, we would need more signatures on petitions. Uh, and that was a huge change from what we previously had, um, which was 14 in Dover, which was 1% of our registered voters and six in Wordsboro, 1% of their registered voters. Um, so we would have needed a total of 20 under the Merge district prior to Act 176. Um, so as Senator Gullick mentioned, um, the number of signatures in Burlington, so 60 may not be that bad for their registered, um, their number of registered voters, which is roughly 37,000. Um, but in our small towns, that can be difficult to obtain. Um, and in fact, um, and Senator Gullick, you can correct me if I'm wrong, I believe Burlington, you only need 30 signatures, um, on your petitions. Um, which is half of what we would need in River Valleys where we only have 2,000 registered voters. So there's quite that discrepancy. Um, I remember 50, but it could be 30. It felt like 50. That's always a lot. I know that, um, I believe as a senator, you have to get 100. Um, if I remember correctly, and, um, uh, house reps have to get 50, I think. Yeah. So, um, so basically there are a few reasons why I think that, uh, a change is warranted to, um, to chapter 11 to bring it back in line with, um, a single standard across all school districts. Um, first just consistency across the state for all school districts. Um, and then also, so you have some consistency throughout the state, the, excuse me, the statute, um, including across different sections, um, fairness and equity, um, as I mentioned with the discrepancy in the numbers. Um, and because we really want more participation in our democracy and adding this new barrier to doing this seems counterproductive. Um, I know personally, um, about five years ago when I was first running for the board, um, I was relatively new to Vermont at the time. I still am to some extent. I've been here now for nine years. And if I had had to achieve 60 signatures on a petition, um, it would have felt, um, undoable for me, um, with the number of people that I knew in my comfort level in the town that I wouldn't have run. Um, and I think we want to be encouraging more people to run for public service and not discouraging it. Um, and that, that's basically it. I do want to, um, thank legislative council best say James for pointing out as originally drafted as 132 had left some districts, I believe the, uh, elementary school, um, uh, boards still needing 60 signatures. So I think that, um, correcting that definitely makes the bill stronger. Um, and I want to thank Senator Goulick for sponsoring the bill and you chair campaign and the whole committee for taking it up. Um, I really appreciate it. And, um, all honesty, um, I was talking to our town clerk about it this morning. One of the things I absolutely love about Vermont. Um, and one of the reasons I love living here is that somebody can bring somebody like me can bring something to to somebody in a legislature and have it acted upon. Um, and I think that's a, an amazing thing that we have in our, in our state. So thank you. And I should tell you, your senators here as well, Senator Hashi, we weren't going to take it up until he said, I want this bill taken. I appreciate that. And then we took it up right now. I, you know, this is, I appreciate Senator Goulick and others putting it forward. Um, and would you describe this then, Mark, when we get to the floor with it, uh, that this is a, we made a mistake in chapter 11 when we did that rewrite. Is that what, what happens that we're kind of fixing here? I believe so. I believe this is a technical fix. Um, I think there was a lot of cutting and pasting that was done. I mean, it was what a 150 or 200 page bill that rewrite. Um, and I think that that's really all that happened was that there was some cutting and pasting done and some details that, that were dismissed. Any concerns? Any questions? Senator Goulick, how are you feeling about it? I'm really good. I'm trying to find the language around middle and elementary schools. Did you, did you, do you guys see that in here? Let's see. Would you remind us what that question was that people raised the middle and elementary schools? I think that's St. James brought it up that, that elementary and middle schools were not included in this. And, um, I can't remember if we made the fix or not. I believe you asked, um, Miss St. James to, to do that. I don't know whether it's been done yet. And in the as introduced bill, it is still, um, just the section, I think seven 11 and seven 30. Um, I believe, yeah. Um, so those boards would be a different section number. I don't know which section it is. Let's see if that can zoom in from there. And we'll just get this tidy up now. Yeah. We just wanted to, to correct me if I'm wrong, pulling the elementary and middle schools, right? Yes. That is my understanding. And we'll see if that can jump in. We're going to invite ledger counseling right now, Mark. Uh, see if she can join us for a second so we can just settle this and hopefully, uh, a little bit. Senator Gilliff, do you have a preference whether or not you would like this to go as a separate bill or if you'd like an attachment, Selena said, I do not have a preference. Which one would survive having highest chances of survival? Uh, good question. I think both. It's good. It's a nice bill. Yeah. So it'd have to get for rural suspension, which I don't think they would, they would do, they'd be concerned about, but our house counterparts could ignore it. Right. I don't think they would. Um, and, uh, we don't have to decide right now, but we can, we're going to, these are both going to leave this week. So one way or the other, we just have to make sure. Thank you. We've been talking about putting it in this lane. We have. We have. Uh, she's amazing. Okay, she's amazing. She said, okay. Well, we will ask her to add elementary and middle school. And when she's available, maybe she could join us for, for, for a few minutes. Anything else from you to show her? Um, not on this. Um, if, since I'm here, um, if, um, if you don't mind, I'd like to make a quick comment on 43, since you're going to be. Sure. Discussing that next. Um, so basically the way I, I see 483, um, is that it, it's a bill that, that is bringing in a bit more equity, what I call equity and funding transparency. Um, taxpayers will work really hard for their, their earnings. And I think they have the right to know that the rules that are applied, um, equally across all schools, um, that are receiving money from the Ed fund. Um, I believe that allowing, um, private schools to select their students. Um, even if it's as simple as them having the ability to discourage some students during a admissions process. Um, which could be subtle, but still there. Um, is the, is, is a problem and goes against the very nature of, um, the equity that should be attached to the use of public education funds. Um, I would strongly urge you to, to pass 403. Um, I do believe that bringing the two systems a little closer together, um, is, um, going to help make our public education system, including our private and then schools stronger. Um, so I would encourage you to, to move forward with that. And I thank you for indulging me in, in those comments. Happy to create. So we'll keep you posted. Uh, when we see Ledge Council, we'll ask them to make that change. And, uh, glad you were able to be with us and we will either attach the miscellaneous ed or send it out on its own so that it'll be ready to go, uh, by next, uh, March is when this, we would want this in place. Great. I'm available. If you have any further questions and I really thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Okay. Take care. Have a good day. Thank you. Bye bye. Okay. So we're just waiting for our next witness to hop on. Please. Just curious. Um, I think I've looked ahead on the agenda for the week, but can you, can you outline the kind of big movements expected Wednesday from where we, you know, several of their vote on that's, I would say it's a 461 for sure. And likely this, well, without this being 132. So we're just waiting. Okay. Yeah, we can hop off while we wait. Yeah, I'm sorry. Not yet. Ready? Yeah, we're ready. H483. CJ, thanks for joining us. It's great to see you. Uh, you came to us. I know you're a constituent, I believe of Senator Gulick, but it was Senator Shinden and Senator Mazza, uh, that brought a situation to our attention. And, and I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. Um, and maybe Senator Gulick may have mentioned this as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, CJ. It 483. So there's some constituents in Senator Mazza's district that use your school right now. And you were feeling as though it 483 were to go into effect. It would, you would not be able to take those students in the future and you were looking for us to grandfather students in. Correct. Okay, can you tell us, explain what's happening in 483 that you have concerns about? Because if you were to say, okay, 483 is, you know, if you look at the basic parts of 483, there's a big part about, uh, you know, anti-discrimination policy. There's this requiring that students don't have interviews and admissions tours that could impact their admissions. You've got, uh, uh, what else is in there, the moratorium, what's in there that really would, and then there's the also the other piece, the 25 miles out of state. So I'm just trying to get a sense of what is it that you, that would cause you to not take students from, uh, other districts, from tuition districts. Sure. Um, well, I thank you for, for inviting me in to speak and I'm glad to share about our, our position, our situation. Um, there are a number of things in the bill that impacts different in-event schools, but us specifically, there are two parts. One is the, um, not having an admissions process and two, there's a part in there, Kenwood section it is that talks about reviewing all applicable, um, public school requirements that should be applied to independent schools. And we're so small, um, that we don't have the bandwidth to, well, let me back up for a moment. I came, I think it was in December, sometime this winter. What went. Go ahead. I came earlier and talked about rock points. I don't want to bore you, but we, if there's a spectrum of schools, um, you know, we have, uh, people who are high flying college bound students, and then we have kids on the other end that are, are in the hospital because they can't, they just, they need so much mental health and, uh, support. We're in the middle on the education side of things. Our students were, were, were a niche where we're not, um, competing with public schools or larger schools for students. It's when they can't function or not getting to school, then they're out of their, their realm. And then then we're looking at kid to help kids there. We're looking at, um, you know, you know, you know, with that said, um, you know, we've had, we've not accepted some students that were too, too high functioning. We're saying, no, we're not going to take you because you'd be, you'd be just sitting and spinning. It wouldn't, it wouldn't be healthy for you. We've, we've not taken some kids that needed more than we have to offer because we're in this small bandwidth where. Half our kids have come from. A treatment center. And they need a landing place to land. Other kids are struggling. They're not getting to school. They're not getting to school. They're not getting to school. They're not getting to school. They're not getting to school. They're not getting to school. They're not getting to school. They're not getting to ESD, whether it's suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, reactive attachment disorder. It could be a variety of reasons that they're not getting to school, but we create this atmosphere where kids with this on tender hooks. Can come into school and start where they are. And we move them forward very slowly. So, so we have a kind of a range that we can, that we can serve well. Without having an admissions process. And we have to take the kids to the real house to help the kids that were doing so successfully. And if we were to take some kid, any kid. New. My interpretation is that we have to take any kid without it, without admissions process. And I think that could, we're so small. That could really disrupt the learning experience of the kids that are here now. And I also feel like. Ethically to take the money. I'd have to have no, no admissions process. So. I would have to follow that if I didn't follow that. And so. So, if I didn't follow that, then I would have to open the school up for a lawsuit. And we don't have the, you know, we're doing okay, but we don't have like all these funds help protect ourselves and a steward of the school. I'm trying to say, how do I protect these kids, provide the service. And by losing that gate to come in, we're not discriminating, but we're trying to find the right match for kids. Yeah. And I think that having, I'm really impressed with the efforts put into look at discrimination be approved shouldn't be allowed that just that focusing on that behavior makes sense to me for the schools like ours that have a have a niche that we're not trying to pull people from other schools our kids are coming they can't get to school I thought we had a carve out for schools like yours in terms of the admission process that's my that was hi CJ that was my question um so there seems as far as I can tell there's a provision in 483 that would allow students on an IEP or a 504 to go to the school the best suits their needs would that not be you all so we're not a therapeutic I think a therapeutic school isn't is it for therapeutics right is the therapist yeah so so we're not I call us lower case t therapeutic we don't have therapists on staff we don't have psychiatrists we don't have a full-time special educator we have a special educator who consults with highly competent staff all our students are in therapy but outside of the school and so not every student in our school is on a IEP or 504 plan so we don't qualify for that and that would actually be we'd become a different kind of school so we don't fit into that carve out okay senator yeah just the comment on what you just said CJ I think that's that's the challenge that I'm yelling the the issue with is that you know at least in my district what I've learned very clearly over the last few weeks is there are a lot more schools than I thought that take students who have needs that aren't necessarily in an IEP or a 504 and you know it's yeah the challenge is figuring out how to how to navigate that and so it's um yeah that's just what it's you know I appreciate I have the same concern how do you make make sure that there's a good fit for a student if they're on a 504 or IEP or not and they just have particular needs that you want to make sure are met by the school we heard uh we're having some people in public schools do this CTE programs do a big admissions process we're going to hear about it where kids get rejected sometimes because they're not a fit for that program so we're looking to make sure there's some consistency there we heard I think we have them coming in the local CTE program turned away I think they'll tell us 60 kids last year these are public dollars but the kids just aren't a fit for that program for one reason or another what's what CTE it's attached to spalding so it's CBCC I believe yeah okay yeah I wonder if I know because I feel like the intent is really to have to serve kids and to support kids and we're trying to find a way through this I wonder what the best way is to to look at independent and public schools collectively on that spectrum are referred to to when we're looking at a kid's knee like we're in there it's likely looking at like where can that could get that what they need the best and um and direct them in that direction um it seems like a different approach but I just wonder how we can work together more yeah see Jay do you know what other states do with this particular issue do you have any I I need to do some research but I've just been wondering like what massachusetts does and other new england states and do you know that's a great question I don't know but I do have some contacts in asany and I could help connect you and myself we could do we could do it together to find out because I'd be curious too um the asany is the association of independent schools of new england yep thanks yeah yeah it'd be interesting to find if you can find if some of these schools have just decided not to do interviews or campus tours I mean frankly I feel like it's a it's a kind of a self-esteem I think it helps a student in some ways to tour to visit interview to have that kind of experience I haven't been convinced that it's a bad thing um but the house obviously has so I'm trying to figure that out a little bit and I think others on this committee are as well yeah I think if the tenor the tenor of the experiences and think we talk about um they're transferable skills so for a young person to be saying is this you know schools I'm checking school checking me out but I'm checking out the school and trying to find the right match and and as opposed like are you going to get into this elite elite situation that's not what we're trying to do and have them be part of like no you you need to be thoughtful and and be engaged in your process too whether it's for high school for college for a job for wherever you are like that kind of learning is really important but I'm not about exclusive better or worse like what's the right thing you know I talk to my students who go to college I say don't worry about the label don't you don't need to go to some label school like you go to the school the college that makes sense for you because once once you get out beyond that no one's looking at that school like you just want to know if you're pat you figure you're finished it or not and and what you want to do is learn and grow and become more and more effective and that's if you go to some school that you think looks good but isn't the right match that doesn't help you. Senator? I just wanted to make a comment about I think my sense is the intention of this bill generally speaking is to achieve a little bit more equity between some of our quote unquote independent private schools approved independent schools and public schools because some of these independent schools receive public dollars it seems as though they should have to operate in relatively similar ways to the public schools and I think in terms of the admission process generally speaking public schools take everybody and my sense I again I'm not in the house. record it's going to be expelled and there's my sense is this bill was trying to get to an equity lens and that independent schools need to accept everyone in the same way public schools do if they accept public dollars that's just me and trying to interpret. Yeah. I agree with that but the challenge that I'm facing is for example these niche schools of Rock Point Compass whatever they are where do they fall into the picture when their role is to predominantly accept students that that are facing behavioral challenges whether or not they fall in an IEP or 504 I mean you know for example Compass there's there's a number of kids who go there because they got bullied excessively in and the nearby public school and you know that's not something that lands on a 504 IEP so I mean what I'm trying to figure out is how to take into consideration these niche schools that serve a specific purpose but aren't in the therapeutic school category without passing a bill that will really you know cause a lot of problems for you. Yeah I agree. Yeah I'll just add to that I think we heard also from the kid from Sharon Academy they got bullied at the public school they wanted to leave so you go on a campus just see what the other kids are like you kind of get a feel for it you sit down on the classroom just kind of feel if it's going to be a safe spot for you. Yeah. CJ please continue anything anything else you want to add. I think that sounds like you guys are right in the mix of it and it's a great great process and discussion I think you've heard my concerns around your own but also there was a part in there about applying other public school requirements and again and I invite anyone in Martín for sure this summer you know when you're when you have some more time in your hands when I'd love to have any of you come to the school to get a sense of what we do first hand and how applying certain requirements wouldn't really fit with our school and that happens with others perhaps other smaller schools too so I wonder how we can address that too. If you know what's the what's the objective of the requirements and how can we meet the objective without necessarily doing it the same way a public school does because it would really be very different but if we can be in the same spirit and the same goal we can meet there to get the job done of course benefiting the kid. Did you testify before a house ed? I did with Drew Greninger we did we did a doubt was that are you at your house ed right? No you're so no I came to you guys before I believe I didn't do house ed. Drew was in there too. Related to the bill CJ I don't know if this impacts you or not but the other part that I'm trying to figure out a little bit is the there's something that says we would be well let me back up last year we passed a bill that said dollars can leave the state only if you are going to school in a bordering state and we also said if you are going to if you're going to a therapeutic school and you're looking for a fit we weren't concerned about where that therapeutic school might be it could be California I mean whatever the best fit for the kid we know there are some circumstances where the state can't meet needs so what this bill says is no dollars can go 25 miles outside of the state I'm struggling a little bit with the with the mileage I don't know if we're cutting people off I don't know I haven't looked into it carefully enough with that impact you guys at all in any way I mean you know you get stupid because one of the things I want to make sure doesn't happen is we don't want New Hampshire to say all right we're not sending kids to Lyndon to St. John's Berry or New York you know there are some of these relationships out there you don't have any of those with others that doesn't impact us I think it's a good thing to be looking at because I think the Vermont kids should have that option when they're on the the border I'm sorry my ear thing keeps falling out it does not impact rock point but I think it's a good thing to keep to be able to have our markets go so so just to confirm you have no students from out of state on an IEP that are being paid for by the state like New Hampshire Maine nothing like that okay great senator uh no the air cushions okay anything else go ahead you know I I did you know you're not asking about the 2200 rules but uh when that first came in I was thinking like ah can I do that then also uh because of special ed dollars but talking with the AOE and talking with our lawyer they said you know just be in good relationship with the LEA and be clear about who you serve because the LEA if they can work in concert they're gonna they're not going to send a kid to a place where they're gonna be set up to fail like that and that's the collaboration piece I think is really good the 483 up the bar and changed it and made it more intense so I think it's just how can we collaborate more and and be an open dialogue to best serve the young person not it's not about me filtering kids out it's about me making sure with the LEA that we got the right math the right skillset to serve that kid so that's that's where I hope to put our energy so we're gonna go through the bill uh section by section but you know this this is one of those pieces that might get pulled it might stay in depending on how committee members feel uh but you're saying from your perspective it's important to keep to to not have it in you want to continue to make sure that interview happens the campus tour etc absolutely okay how many students at rockpoint at rockpoint this currently is 32 we have between 25 and 35 we could have up to 40 really with 32 right now of the 32 eight are being paid by district funds anything else really appreciate it cj appreciate your thoughtfulness in your time and I I hope it can change in the bill if it can't as with martin I do hope that there could be a grandfather class of the kids who are here are able to finish their schooling um you know I'm already looking at trying to find other ways revenues to support them but we'll cross that bridge when we need to after you finish your work okay thank you thank you take care so we'll look at Friday interview process do you want to keep it in pulling it or I mean it just gets some thoughts we've had some testimony now on interview you've already done a walk through on this right yeah so the cj's point I understand why certain schools need to enter they're filling niches they're not they're not trying to be generic schools I think that's important for both parties to evaluate each other we're not probably be one size fits all I agree with that yeah and then as an addendum how on top of that how do we make it so that moving moving beyond the you know filling a niche part how do we prevent discrimination how do we prevent people from saying you know you can't come to the school for x y z reasons that are didn't uh 2200 take care of that and we already have laws and books about non-discrimination I don't think we need another set of identical laws I think we've taken care of that but if I'm wrong please but the interview process even the 25 mile thing is just seems you know the 25 mile thing is a little bit of architecture there's a 28 or so school up in Quebec it's servicing our northern kingdom community it's 28 miles just seems like a somebody just tagged him tagged a distance that seemed reasonable at the time without doing research that's all you want it to be 30 right I think we need to look at where the schools serve and if there's you know if it's you know if it's reasonable that 30 is the answer because of the 28 school 28 mile school what I would really like to make sure that we end is sending kids to foreign countries on public dollars so including Canada if 483 doesn't go anywhere I'd at least like to see that go into the miscellaneous building possibly it's absurd to me that we send public dollars to Sweden and Japan for school for yeah yeah we got rid of it last year you know the house didn't pick it up but we did that also and we grandfathered in of course those kids just so they could finish we have more testimony on 483 yeah we've got uh you have Senator Felix uh witness yeah and if we need to pull some time up I just you know I want to bring it back to equity and we know the social determinants of health and how your success in this country is very much based on where you live and I have a whole bunch of students in my district who live in poverty who are new Americans who can't afford to move to land growth so that their parents can fly them to Switzerland to go to school this is an equity issue I think it's really important if we if we're going to be this state that claims to be taking care of our people all and when I say our people I'm talking about the most marginalized and vulnerable and we need to make some changes and that is one I just want to echo what senator casheen just said that is it just extremely inequitable because you're setting up some people to succeed and some people to fail right off the bat well let me I'm going to back up just a step just because I I don't think we all know what this whole international school uh cost is all about like who these people are you know most likely they're vermont residents they're working overseas somewhere could be that could be that the the students are in a school near their parents but but the parents are paying vermont taxes and property tax I mean I did I did that for freaking 15 years and I but not but I didn't property I'm paying tax to fix the roads in Brattleboro and I don't live in Brattleboro this is what we do as a state we support each other as I know but but there's a cap on the all I'm saying is I don't think we know enough about the overseas for people to really cast stones up I really don't think we do it doesn't it doesn't sound good I know some of the families who've used it in the past okay okay well that you know maybe if that we're you know a contentious element that we bring some land that can talk about why that's all where I live no and not from where I live but from I can name the towns I won't but um any choice town anyway it's just I don't know I think it's a little disingenuous since we're having an open conversation until Erin gets here to to be talking about like the right fit for the kid because I could easily say well my kids the right fit would have been a ski school in Zermatt Switzerland that would have been the right fit for my kids I mean is that is that where we're at that everyone's going to question I think the question would properly be asked to somebody like CJ what did he mean not not us because we're not in a situation I would disagree with part of that I mean you know it's I mean this is going back to the bullying you know harassment issues you know it's there there are some independent schools that are picking up where public schools are failing which is you know providing niche services for kids who are you know experiencing these sorts of things and not getting the resources that they need conversation right now we're talking about going overseas to private so I thought you were talking about equity I'm trying to talk about equity okay I was I was unclear what so disregard I guess I just think the overseas but again minor minor subset of Vermont citizens there might be more of a story there than we recognize doesn't sound good I agree with you a hundred percent but we haven't heard from them so we can't right can't really speak you know intelligently because you want to say anything else about equity and bullying no I think I was just got distracted and thought we were done about something else so it's all connected I mean it's it's yeah in a way it's all connected in my mind I think the the overseas bid for me it's it's an easy call I mean I wouldn't like the fact that if I'm paying tax dollars for somebody to go to a fancy school and switch I just don't think it makes sense you know if you're living overseas and you want to send your kid I mean and that's the other if you're living overseas but you have the residents in Vermont and then you're using that residence to get other taxpayers to pay for your kid to go to school where you're currently living overseas yeah they're paying Vermont taxes yeah and they're paying Vermont property taxes and there are public schools they could be sending their kids to here in the state they're paying resident taxes or residence I'm just saying that I'm just saying that it's a it's an odd scenario I don't think we really understand it I agree with you that at first blush should you know it's it's a problem it should be correct but I'm just telling you I don't I don't feel like we know enough about it to just like we don't know enough about whether it's 25 miles or 28 miles we just don't and it's difficult to you know put a black line through it and say no it's not it's not appropriate so it's not like we're we're talking about bills do we amend it that for do we just say no there's too many glitches well it sounds like we're going to mend it one way or the other or and we've got we'll hear from parents from other people here from special educators etc this week so by the end of the week I think what a good idea where the community is I mean for me as I've said the big piece is the anti-discrimination piece the special education piece and I do think there are there is a home I don't think it's a one size fit I do think that for certain kids certain schools are a better fit like a pop point in some cases because they'll save their kids life okay right under the wire please yeah over am I gonna be scolded they make nice little woody statuettes hi miss McGuire how are you hi can you all hear me okay yes thanks for sure happy to be with you I'm sorry I'm not in person I am away and so I'm hoping that my internet works just fine and it is possible that it could be a little bumpy so if that happens just please do let me know but so far so good hopefully so far so great and and thank you I realize you're away this is probably your vacation week I really cannot thank you enough for taking the time to come before us in addition to everything else you're doing so yeah great so age 483 senator gulick thought you might be able to give us some thoughts and some ideas on the bill for sure thanks for inviting me good to see all of you I'm grateful to have an opportunity to talk with all of you I am hopeful that you'll feel free to engage me in a conversation I will certainly share some thoughts with you today that I hope will be helpful and then always happy to answer questions as well I think it's always helpful for people to know sort of who I am and do a brief introduction so for those of you that I don't know I am currently serving as the director of equity and inclusion as well as the co-director of student support services for the Essex Westford school district that means I do all DEI work as well as special education and 504 disability services and really much more in public education in Vermont even EWSD which is considered large in Vermont is relatively small and many of us are many hats I also have been through the presidency of the Vermont council of special education administrators and I currently serve as the past president of the national organization for special education directors so I'm the past president of PACE which is the council of administrators of special education I did talk to Beth Carver superintendent before I can speak to you today and so she does know that I'm testifying and if I were to be sort of associated in this testimony with any particular group it probably would be the Essex Westford school district but I like to share those kinds of things so that you know the spaces that I'm in and the information that I have to share and actually this particular topic really brought I'm informed by my length of years in education in Vermont using independent schools for special education campuses as well as interacting with the four academies and other private schools in Vermont but I also have done a fair amount of work on private schools and the voucher systems that are happening all across the nation and so I do bring a little bit of a national perspective to you on this dynamic of using public funds in private space it is something that happens to fair amount in Vermont we certainly have public private partnerships that's sort of a term I like to use to describe them in a number of different areas I think Vermont you know has a history of that certainly in public schools as well as in early childcare we now have that design and you know we even have it in the mental health system where the designated agency system in Vermont is you know the agency of human services is asking 501c3s to provide mental health services in Vermont so I'm hoping to talk with you a little bit about a systems level of thinking because I think it's really important that that lens is brought to the table we can talk a lot about Vermont it's unique there are a lot of pieces of us that I'm so proud of and live in Vermont for those reasons and I do think it's helpful sometimes to look outside of ourselves right at the national landscape where we are having a design that many other states have been engaged in um around voucher and students to private schools we don't talk a lot about it that way here but I um I do want to sort of touch that because I feel like for me to make comment today I do want to make sure that I am in a space where I can bring to you right the best of my thinking and that's often how I think about it and other spaces is really using public funds in private spaces so thanks for letting me do that intro um let's talk specifically about 483 um I do think generally it is a a step forward for sure related to how we as a public institution looking to educate our students in Vermont the best way we know how for their futures um you know I think it's a step forward if we are going to use public funds in private spaces to educate students I'm an equity director so what that means is that I come with a very clear sense of ensuring that not only do students not experience discrimination but they also get to live their best selves whenever we do anything in the context of public school delivery we don't want identity to interfere it as a matter of fact we want identity to always be in strength for everyone no matter what that identity is right so we're thinking about students from the LGBTQ community and wanting to make sure that they are able to live the best their best life in every aspect without interference from discrimination or harm alright being sure that racism is not um perpetrated by our public institutions and I do think that obviously Carson v. Macon right indicated that religion is uh cannot be a reason not to engage with a private school for purposes of provision of public funds if you do that otherwise and Vermont does that right we do provide tuition vouchers to um private schools and so we cannot deny a private school now that is a religious school simply because of religion um I will say though that there's certainly an intersection between challenges for the LGBTQ community and some religious spaces not all of them but some of them and it is very important to me and to a lot of people in this state and probably you all sitting here too that students don't have experiences using public funds that are discriminatory in any way and I think that's part of what each um 483 brings to you is an opportunity to be really clear about that so I just wanted to offer support about making sure that not only do students not end up discriminated against but they have full access to anywhere where we're using public funds I just really do not think that we should ever provide any public funds in any space that is discriminatory um in an enrollment practice or in a service practice I mean you know even in the mental health system like I would never want a 501c3 to be designated as a da and then be able to only serve certain populations that would just not be okay and so I think um 483 really kind of helps us move forward if we are going to maintain a voucher and private school design for public education in Vermont um you know I I I want to just also appreciate some of the creativity and the ways in which education is delivered in some of the private schools in Vermont you know I I am not here to disparage that group of people I've worked with many of them I will say though that those spaces do not comply with a lot of the expectations that your body puts into public school and I think it's important that we just stop and ask ourselves whether your expectations are only for some students or whether they really all for are for all students because there are um some things that private schools are not responsible for related to accountability practices uh related to curricular expectations related to mtss thinking about the um amazing implementation of Act 173 it's been hard not here to say it's easy I'm not here to say it's perfect um but you know you know the the um in my work I'm working actually with a private school now that um is seeking to really lift up their mtss and their design through the lens of Act 173 but it's it's a very different landscape in that space it just you know we've grown our public system to be what it is today and um that space has not been required to do those same things so that landscape looks different I think I just want to end by uh saying that the um the way that we hold ourselves public schools and private schools who use public funds accountable I think we need to be thoughtful about how we do that the stories that you all hear matter so sometimes you are hearing incredible stories about private schools in Vermont that are doing amazing work with students and I want to be careful about this conversation dismissing that those are real stories they matter those are students right who uh who are maybe having their needs met really well in a certain place um but I think it's important that while we look at um the the stories that we hear and what I'll describe as qualitative data when you hear a story that's a that's a data set and you hear a qualitative data set I think it's important that we balance that with both qualitative and quantitative as well as positive and negative qualitative data um if you look across the nation around the experiences of students in the United States through voucher systems into private schools we see a whole range of experience um both positive and negative and I think we see that here in Vermont too for me it's more about a systems lens right we don't legislate off stories we want to make sure that we think holistically about the systems that we implement and they're what's best for everyone um and I do think that our current design in reference to the public private partnership where we provide public school through private schools in Vermont needs a lens you know we need to look at it carefully and we should apply an equity lens it's important that we do not see discriminatory discriminatory practices or lack of access in the same way that we wouldn't see a lack of access in public schools because then then we go down a road that doesn't match what we espouse to be where we believe is the right direction so I think those are the things that I wanted to share about uh 483 sort of from systemic lens I am supportive of the bill I think that it is a good step forward towards some of the things that I've described that can be problematic and I hope that um you know I'm happy to answer questions about independent schools from a special ed lens or um or other questions that the committee might have and thanks for giving me an opportunity to share my thoughts with you you know thank you thank you very much questions for miss mcguire senator uh thank you um erine I uh obviously oh erin i'm sorry i'm sorry so sorry hey so you know clearly you've got a great deal of experience in this field and certainly um you're providing some excellent insights so I'm curious about what your thoughts are on the implementation the intent and implementation of the 2200 series if you think that that was you know appropriate solid move and then the gaps between the 2200 series and the potential um 483 bill house 483 sure yeah I'm happy to speak to that um I I think uh private schools needing to implement a full complement of special education services and 173 you know and within the context of mtss like really being a robust provision of services to meet the intent of what we've asked for under rule 2200 in in the special education rules series and its totality and then I also think about the reasons that act 46 came forward small institutions have a hard time providing what our legislature has expected of educational delivery by itself it's why we consolidated educational entities and to larger entities with you know um really not being able to have schools of 140 or 200 students and be able to meet all of the demands and the needs that we've said are essential in public ed so I think that what we've asked for to happen is appropriate and I think it needs to happen I also think that private schools individually doing everything on their own is I understand why that's become a challenge you know I think it's completely appropriate to expect um provision of special education I don't think schools should be able to deny access to students who are otherwise appropriately placed under IDEA in a general public school setting and then then they don't have access to this place where we're providing public funds it's a private space and they say no sorry we can't meet your needs I mean that just starts to become problematic so the idea that we expect private schools to provide special education in order to be non-discriminatory since we provide public funds into those spaces I think is essential I also have a great deal of empathy for small private schools trying to function as public schools inside of the current design and again that is why Act 46 came forward because it's very difficult to meet all of the requirements that you would need to meet to provide the high level of education that we in Vermont expect for our students if the only populace is 146 students and it's just that school only doing all of the things that need to be done including provision of a free appropriate public education for students with disabilities so it's not totally surprising to me that it's been a real challenge and I think that if we are going to maintain a private public partnership with private schools to provide a public education in Vermont that they need to be able to serve students under the federal law as students with disabilities who have a least restrictive environment of the general ed setting they need to be able to do that how we do that what that looks like is 2200 did it did it sort of thread the needle exactly as it needed to I think you'll hear different perspectives depending on what people are contending with but I I do know that it is definitely challenging for private schools to be able to do all of that that body of work does that help answer the question that you had it does I appreciate that just a little more specifically do you feel that the 2200 series did an adequate job of addressing the lbgtq community that you raised at the beginning of your briefing you know the idea that open enrollment is present and non-discriminatory practice is expected is appreciated I don't think that we go far enough when we create a floor of non-discrimination so as an equity director I think that there is more to do than make sure people don't experience discrimination I think that's like kind of your basic floor of what should be expected I think that really protecting people who often experience discrimination is a very important job and I I definitely would prefer to see higher levels of expectation than non-discrimination but I also understand the limitations of a legislative body to some degree as well so you know I I I'm not sure the exact specific language that you're asking me about in rule 2200 and so if you would like to read the specific language I might have a more to add but I would just say that generally speaking for me non-discrimination is a floor that for me is like a non-negotiable and I would expect that there wouldn't be differential treatment that there would be an a welcoming and excitement about people with differences I believe that difference is a strength differences is is an amazing opportunity of all kinds and I I am not sure how if if 2200 is played out in that lens or not I want to be careful about speaking about things I'm not sure about so would want to be careful about that but is there a specific set of words that you'd like to read to me from no I don't no I don't I just uh I was curious your basic impression thank you 2200 series just so you know Aaron it's there's anti-discrimination language in there that says no public dollars can go to a school unless they follow the you know the anti-discrimination policy and they put it on their website things like that and I think it's safe to say I agree absolutely that it's more than just anti-discrimination policy and I would say that's true with our public schools as well as we have heard in this committee absolutely like how do we beef them up and give them the supports that they need to make sure that students feel safe and welcoming yes I agree with you yeah thank you that's going to do it hi Aaron I had a quick question for you um that I asked of CJ spirit earlier but neither of us came up with an answer um we're hearing from some small private schools that aren't therapeutic but that help kids that might have mental health needs or are differently abled um do you out of curiosity do you know what other states do um because we're being told that some of these kids can't be served in the public schools so that's why they go to these small um schools do you like massachusetts for example do you have any sense of what they might do yeah I don't know specifically massachusetts martin but I think it's worth having I'll just walk through a little bit of the independent private school design in special education um and uh whether or not the school is or is not approved under vermont rules to provide special education the lens of focusing in on um particular populations of students through what we would might describe as a therapeutic lens vermont has a very long history of using special education dollars to um meet the needs of students who are struggling to be able to have a least restrictive environment in the public school setting for one reason or another under special education and we've used independent or private schools to actually do that body of work and I think that's what makes sometimes this conversation also confusing for people because um that is sort of a sub-population of private schools if you will that do that body of work um I I there are most states that I'm aware of and I want to be careful I think there are plenty of states out there that use a similar model um that have public schools that have larger continuums of available services I guess that's the way I would describe it so you know the idea that um uh I'll just give you an example Essex Westford school district does not have right now although we are looking at changing this um right now k 8 we do not have any environment that uh is specifically for delivery of special education in the context of separation from the classroom right most states have uh special education classrooms or schools where students who with like needs can have their needs met on a continuum that is there is less and less of there's there's less of that in Vermont than there is in other places in my opinion which makes us rely on these independent private schools much more strongly it is my opinion that public schools do need to increase their capacity to be able to increase their continuum of care I don't think though that that means that we won't require very specialized um service provision in a more contained setting for some students and again you know we are small we're a small state and so the idea that we would benefit our state by thinking about the private public partnership to help build capacity in very specific circumstances where public schools cannot provide the services but you know you build out a small environment that can really do that well and do it for you know uh this part of the state or that part of the state you know Chittenden County is a is a relatively large place and you can build a school that will will provide those services there and people will use them but I it is my opinion that public schools need to increase their own capacity to do some of this work rather than using sort of those separate settings that are private or independent in Vermont again that's not to say I want independent or private schools to close that are doing that now but I that is a different conversation than the reason those schools are closing there are some schools that are closing they're expressing an inability to do the work based on implementation of the school approval process and the amount of tuition they're allowed to charge to public schools so that's kind of a separate issue and Martin I don't know if that's something that you want to talk about or not but generally speaking I think public schools need to increase their capacity yes there may be a need for some specific delivery of independent school or private schools that can do very specific work with students that are not able to be met in the public school continuum but I I think we need to expand our public school continuum thank you does that make sense yeah yeah I need to do some research because I am curious about what other states are doing yeah I mean they're they're definitely they have their own schools that uh separate schools that will provide those services to students in a lot of other states that are related to the public to the district yeah that are that are owned by the district I mean that exists in Vermont too there are school districts that have separate programs in separate buildings that run a school specifically to meet certain students needs yeah we've got that actually yeah yeah so I mean you know you the the idea of doing it is certainly something that we can do there's just a very you know we contend in Vermont with the way things grew versus the way we would build things today right probably that happens everywhere but the way this has all grown up is that we have built a private public partnership to do this body of work instead of building it out inside of public systems is that the right decision is that the wrong decision I think that's actually your question like where where do we want these services and this body of work happening for our students do we want it inside of private space or do we want it in public space or are we supportive of the private public partnership and if so what are the requirements right right yeah thank you very much you're really great to be able to zoom in while you're away happy to do it anything for the good of the afternoon I think we're good okay all right great I hope it's sunny nice wherever you are yeah thank you all right okay all right all right let's take a minute break we're back and pick up Ms. Barquist right thank you thank you families and friends watch from home we are back on Senate Education Tuesday April 25th 309 Ms. Barquist you've asked to weigh in on the language that Boryang put forward to add to the miscellaneous education bill and if you were here earlier you would hear that the committee's still struggling a little bit on this we heard what Ms. Galski is here she mentioned and Ms. Galski to confirm you were representing that day the NEA everybody was saying don't move forward yeah the four associations so uh and so this has to do with severe and pervasive standard of bullying and harassment so with that the floor is yours yes well hopefully I won't confuse your decision too much but maybe offer you some clarity um Jessica Barquist policy director at the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence and we strongly support the amendment that was offered to H461 that will strengthen the bullying and harassment language and our education harassment statute we are generally supportive of reforms that improve our system responses to harassment and discrimination and an earlier intercept before victims experience long-range impacts harassment based on the students protected characteristics can have long term and detrimental impacts to both their mental health and our education in particular we want to highlight the importance of this bill in addressing sex and gender-based harassment sexual harassment is a form of sexual violence and this can take many forms including unwanted unwanted unwelcome or unwanted sexual advances and sexually explicit and offensive conduct these behaviors can create a hostile and abusive educational environment last year we worked with Boryang and others to support the efforts to address the severe and pervasive standard in Vermont law and that is across a number of different settings employment housing public accommodations and educational we were pleased to see that harassment standard amended for housing last year and this year we're working on an amendment for um that standard in all public accommodations the severe and pervasive standard which originates from case law creates an exceptionally high barrier for individuals to bring forward meritorious claims of sexual or gender-based harassment victims and survivors who have experienced long-range discrimination or a singular severe instance of harassment have been prevented from bringing forward claims due to the standard as with many forms of sexual violence individuals occupying more than one marginalized identity such as race or gender identity are impacted by issues of harassment in much more complex ways under the severe and pervasive standard students with intersecting identities must prove that they were subject to severe or pervasive harassment on each separate basis the totality of all harassing behavior and its impact cannot be adequately addressed with the current standard s103 is currently being considered in the house and that would change the severe and pervasive standard in employment in other places of public accommodation with the exception of educational settings and if we are to change the severe and pervasive standards for employment while carving out educational settings school employees subject to harassment and discrimination will be treated differently than students and just to underscore this that that schools will become safer for their employees than for students so if the same teacher sexually harasses both a colleague and a student that adult that colleague the other teacher will have more protections for not harassment than the student than the child many states of public accommodation including healthcare settings and prisons have statutory and institutional policies already regarding harassment and discrimination and while it is true that we are expecting new title nine regulations to come out hopefully in the next year or so those represent the minimum standard of protections that institutions must offer vermont can and should do more to offer students protection from harassment and discrimination students deserve the right to pursue a claim for harassment under the public accommodations act and there were two very impactful examples presented in the house last week which i'd like to share with you uh related to how the standard works our students so mh was a ninth grade student in new york when a classmate attacked her in a stairwell pressing her against the wall with all of his weight and groping her all over her body while she tried to push him off and told him to get off this was very clearly a sexual assault but a federal court held that the sexual assault was not severe enough because she was not right nine federal uh in other words the court said that any sexual assault that is not great is not severe enough and then uh a female student in georgia from the 10th grade when an older student forced her to perform sexual acts on the school ground the federal court said the act happened in only a single incident so it was not pervasive enough because she was not attacked on two separate occasions many other parts if you would pause right there for a second all right so under if these happen in vermont right now what and we did pass this amendment then they happen this is allowing a student to do what that he or she would be able to do under current law yeah um so this amendment doesn't hold students liable for harassment it holds the school's liable okay and so it allows students to receive those supports and protections that they need but it doesn't dictate how schools should follow up on that discrimination or require a certain disciplinary to take action and if it did we would not be supporting it and in just for context there are many ways for school schools to be able to address this harassment without discipline first and foremost schools should provide victim-centered responses and that means offering supportive measures to help the harassed victim feel safe at school like a safety plan so they don't have to be in the same classroom as their harasser or figuring out so they don't have to run into their harasser in the hallways or at recess lunch um or on a bus if a harassed victim starts skipping school because they are afraid of seeing their harasser a school can excuse those absences instead of making them truant if their grades have gone down or they are having trouble studying or learning the school can give the student a tutor to help them catch up on school work or an extension for their homework you know if there are so many different ways that the school can offer supportive measures and even for the the harasser right the um there are many things outside of discipline that the school can do to connect them to a mental health counselor to help them understand to help them with past abuse or trauma in their life um the the idea here is that the schools are liable to do something to address the harassment instead of do nothing can you say a word about elementary versus middle versus high school students everybody treated the same way or if the school is held accountable in the same way um yeah i mean i i haven't i have some statistics here for you that are mostly older students um but yes i think all students should have the right to a school environment free from harassment or discrimination um and just to give you some of those statistics data collected by the us department of ed about one in five us students ages 12 to 18 have been bullied between 2015 and 2019 one in four students bullied between 2018 and 2019 were bullied due to their race national origin sexual orientation religion disability or gender additional data from 2021 detailing the impacts of the pandemic found that the risks for sexual and identity-based harassment disproportionately impact students of color girls and lgbt qia plus students vermont schools are not immune to harassment and its harmful impact on students according to results from the vermont 2019 youth risk behavior survey 45 students have been bullied on school property feelings sad and hopeless increased among vermont high school students from 25 to 31 percent and among middle school students from 19 to 23 percent there was an increase in the number of high school students who hurt themselves without wanting to die that went from 16 to 19 made a suicide plan from 11 to 13 percent and attempted suicide up to 7 percent from 5 percent so this legislation essentially just puts more tools in the toolbox for adults to help protect our our children in our school systems and by amending the education code to amend that severe or pervasive standard you all would send a message to vermont residents that harassment based on sex race disability religion age whatever will always be taken seriously regardless of where it occurs and probably possibly even most importantly you will be helping to educate kids at a very young age that harassment in any place is not acceptable and this will help to ensure not just safer schools but safer workplaces and safer public places for all vermonters so thank you so much for squeezing me in today and for your time and attention on this many questions just one uh on the second page you have a comment on school liability and it says this amendment doesn't hold students liable for harassment or discrimination holds schools liable i'm just wondering if the intent of that sentence is a positive or a negative effect it's a positive i think there um have been some some testimony much of this committee are in another committee grappling with these issues that concern that the end result would be that students would end up being expelled or you know further widening their gap of support services and so what i was trying to say there is that this places the onus on the school to address the situation versus placing the onus on the student causing the harassment or with any sort of disciplinary measures okay so i just wanted while you're here just curious if you can comment on where the student and parents responsibility begins i mean i think that um this parents and students do have a responsibility but that the school also has a responsibility to support them in that education and that's part of what we do in schools as we learn from our mistakes and the school needs to be able to support the students and the family and being able to go through that process is it wasky do you mind just waiting a little again on this this is starting as i read it it's starting to sound much more reasonable to me than my initial initial thought can you just stay again why you're opposed to this why you the NEA superintendents you can stay right there no seriously my testimony on friday was not that we are opposed to it our my testimony was that we are our testimony is that you should wait until the federal title nine regulations are issued because they cover a lot of the same areas that this amendment does and i think it'll be helpful for you to hear from attorney heather lin she's up next time your witness list and i think she'll be able to go into a little bit more detail on that but even if even if the feds come back and say june or whatever saying this fine why not get this started what if they come back and not miss i think that i'm sorry would you drop in that well i was gonna back yeah i will just um comment that um you all have already passed s103 and it is up in the house that is likely to pass around employment changing this so schools are places of employment and they will have to change their policies anyway as it results to their employees right so they will already be updating these policies regardless of when or what comes from title nine for teachers and staff personally yes senator so i'm just looking on page two and then there's a statement well it's true we're expecting new title nine regulations to come out in the next year so they represent the minimum standard of protections that institutions must offer do you have any details on the differences that would be created if we were to pass this amendment and then compared to what title nine changes would come down the road you know what okay there's no such thing as a draft that's been circulated there is and my colleague harry brown might have more information that the proposed changes are available they are expected to come out very soon um in judging by past history generally speaking the the final regulations come out after a very public comment tend to match the proposal and there's no guarantee that they actually will but so we have a pretty good idea of what they say um so the the agency of education will meet to be making changes to their model policies on pace and harassment and bullying because of the title nine changes that are definitely fine so that is which are can you tell us i mean that's i think what we're trying to get at what's oh what's what's in it does it look like what we're trying to do right here or is it less no it's it's it's um there are a lot of things in there that have to do with like timing and procedure and that kind of thing they are using still the severe or pervasive standard as a basis and so in that sense it is not providing the same level of protection as this change would that so to bring this one or three to match education so it's a lower standard of protection if you will the agency of education will be revising your model policies in response to the title nine changes and so if you don't make these changes now to the education law and make them later then it will be two different revision procedures that have to happen so if the revision needs to happen it makes a lot more sense to do it all at the same time that's that's exactly as as thank you for that that's one of my concerns too now is the the two different revisions is what it just wouldn't really make sense to do that in my opinion because if we're talking about waiting until title nine and then having AOE revise their rules twice it just seems like a waste of resources and a waste of time if we can do something that's stronger for students. Senator Gilliff what do you think? I mean you've heard what I've had to say I'm just I'm concerned that there may be some in unanticipated consequences for some of our most vulnerable students I'm prepared to be proven wrong I hope I to a certain extent I hope I am but I would just ask that we have some folks from our equity office come in to speak to this in Burlington and maybe in Winooski and maybe even in Essex as well in Colchester you know just some of these schools I'd love to hear from them and what what they have to say and I I hope I'm off base I just don't want would you work with in just a couple more witnesses tomorrow well this week is tough because it is school break so people are away but I'll try yeah that'd be great if we could try to move this um Senator Gilliff's the unintended consequences piece Ms. Berquist I can you say something about that do you how are you feeling about that because one of the things that the committee talked about last week was what if a student were uh artistic said something um inappropriate meant no harm what if somebody were you know just going about learning what life is like and we don't want to jeopardize their future in any way I I can totally appreciate those concerns and I think that's why I said that if this bill dictated disciplinary measures for the harasser we would not support that but what we're hopeful that this amendment does is allows the school um because even if the the person who said um the harassing comment um you know it was part of their personal learning journey at that harm is still real and that victim is still deserving of a response from the school and support from the school and that's what this amendment is trying to do yeah totally agree yeah that's really that's helpful sorry I'm the only everything I would say I absolutely I want victims to be protected I would also say that again having worked in in education for a long time I think a lot of times kids whose behaviors erratic have also suffered trauma and various other travails in their lifetime so yeah and our hope is that schools will address that in a trauma-informed and sensitive way to instead of expelling that student but really working with that student to get the supports they need so that they can be a big member of our community as well so again in this there's no disciplinary measures taken for the harasser this is more hey it was no matter who said it how they said it whether they are right wrong we're talking about the person that was harassed and the school now needs to take steps to make sure that maybe those two people even if it was unintentional this person's not feeling great about it don't interact you know have maybe aren't put on the same team you know all those kinds of things to make sure that person yeah is really and if that doesn't take place then that's when the school could be held accountable that leads me to ask what does accountability look like that is not a question I feel prepared to answer but I can do some more research on my colleagues who have been working on this a little bit more detailed than I have yeah I appreciate you bringing that back to generally and we're not in rarely are we in the finding business are we in the you know so what does that look like you know that would be I believe it's a civil process where the students can address harms that have happened but I will make sure I have that accurate for you yeah essentially it's saying this the schools have to address it instead of sweeping it under the rug or pretending it's not existing it's okay um the only everything I would say to well one other thing really um is that if we are to do this I would just again given the capacity of our schools right now we've heard over and over and over again that they're lacking staff they're lacking capacity their last lacking resources then maybe we have an implementation timeline and again I'm not I would want to hear from schools but maybe some kind of a timeline for them to get get there I don't know I'm just throwing I'm throwing that out as a possibility a couple years I don't know I'd have to hear from them but I mean my just initials a lot of stuff could happen a couple years and we're about trying to improve the lives of kids and I know you are as well and just to be honest thank you thank you thank you very much our next helpfulness great so on the same topic Heather Lynn uh Ms. Lynn there you are how are you I'm well thank you good afternoon everybody good afternoon I don't know if you've been listening in Ms. Lynn but we've uh we just had some testimony from the uh network against domestic and sexual violence on this bill and I think that testimony helped at least me personally better understand what it would do and how it would do it um and but we know that you sent along some concerns so if you would be so kind as to share those concerns after you introduce yourself that would be great I'm appearing here um on behalf of the Vermont School Board Insurance Trust and my connection to that organization is one that also stretches 20 years in my work what I do on a weekly basis your round is on any given day you can see on my calendar time set aside for me to do a training or seminar on harassment casing bullying the definitions a deep dive on the process that schools must follow when that information that relates to conduct that might and that is the standard might be HHB not it's absolutely true not we've proven it is we think it may be going on then schools automatically are compelled already under current law to document what is known to get that information to a building administrator and have that building administrator assess the information lining it up with the standards with a generous approach to meeting that standard and lean in under the standard that is under the Vermont Agency of Education's current procedures their model procedures for the prevention of harassment casing involving mandate when that information lands on the administrator's desk if that information provides them with just nearly reasonable belief that a policy violation may have occurred they shall investigate that information and then the investigation will look into what has happened surrounding circumstances surrounding tracks and understanding of the dynamic that may have been at play and at work and then find whether or not the policy was violated and if not well did something else go on that still was disrupted to the educational environment that requires a response by the schools and so the work that I've been doing for 20 years has been providing schools and the resources to support that work and you can take a look at those resources if you want they are available on the this bit and that's bsbit website you just google this bit and toolkit you will see my work resources in detail tailored to administrators staff and faculty superintendents school boards and within that kit is an itemization of every current duty imposed by law federal and state or schools to respond so with respect and appreciation of the other perspectives that have been brought in front of the committee it's simply not accurate to say that schools currently don't have a duty to respond that duty under Vermont law has existed for over 20 years the current generation of the way in which schools respond in detail is contained in 80s 2015 model procedure that's what's currently up for review I've submitted my proposed amendments to the agency there are loopholes that need you know fixing but those procedures tell schools step by step forgive me I trained on this so I can I can get kind of wound up and into the weeds but I want to turn my commentary now to the topic that is raised by your proposed bill and some of the testimony that you just received which is around sexual harassment sexual harassment is currently prohibited in Vermont schools in two ways under federal law and under state law the state law definition is contained in the model policy there's a policy there's a procedure and if you look at the model policy definition it indeed does contain the severe persistent or pervasive language however however it continues with these words so as to deny or limit the students ability to participate in or benefit from the program you will never hear out of my words at any of my trainings or in any consultation with a client and I do this work all day long oh what you're describing to me is not going to be severe persistent or pervasive I don't even focus on those words all of the action is on the deny or limit how much does it take to limit somebody just one fraction less than 100 percent so what we're looking for when we're considering sexual harassment in Vermont law is schools is is it having any impact at all now let's take the example where a student is on the receiving end of the leader that is otherwise only under the category of sexual harassment but there is no discernible discrete or latent impact at all which is frankly hard for me to imagine but let's just put that out there as an example can you give us an example can you just give a it would be very difficult for me to think of an example of sexual harassment where a student is not feeling some level of impact but if that were true okay you still under your current system with no changes chronic behaviors in school where you don't need to prove any impact and that is your definition of bullying which this body enacted back in 2005 and that is a very strict standard and I I think it's unique in the country all industry requires for the behavior to happen more than once so where a student is under the receiving end of sexual harassment very typically there are a cluster of behaviors but even if there is only one the student can be fully warned and then if they engage in quote any act that has an intent to ridicule humility or intimidating even if it's not on the basis of sex and even if there is no discernible impact from that second incident if it happens to school bullying has occurred so we have a constellation of protections under Vermont law but in addition I heard from the prior witness the concern that students are often also members of other protected categories and the suggestion that if that were the case those other protected category methods of harassment would somehow also require the severe persistent standard and that's just not accurate the general definition of harassment which is in 26a which is a focus of your bill 16 bsa subsection 11 and then 26a defines harassment generally there is no severe or pervasive language anywhere about so if a student who is a member of a minority religion is the target of behaviors and the target of behaviors on a basis of sex the analysis from the school is not going to be whether or not there was severe persistent or pervasive behaviors with respect to the religious based behavior at all that standard in 26a which I outlined in my testimony and you can review that also at your leisure looks for one of six potential impacts any one of the six will get you over the hurdle but again in my example if they're on the receiving end of behaviors that are based on religion and also on the receiving end of behaviors on the basis of sex that's two acts of intentional demeaning or ridiculing behavior which gets you to bullying my point is that there are a lot of obligations under Vermont law which coalesce to provide protections for students already my second point relates to federal law and I heard discussion in a prior witnesses testimony around how we need to make sure that schools step up and start providing supports to students right away that already happens and has happened explicitly since 2020 as a result of the first set of title night regulations those dropped in May 2020 it became effective in August 2020 once the school has any information that sexual harassment might be occurring before even an investigation is launched or even decided to launch the school shall meet with the victim and provide supportive measures which shall include safety plans alternative work schedules alternative settings exports if necessary anything and everything that can reasonably support the student in a way to remove the impact of the harassment which the school at that point frankly operates under a as if it had occurred basis they don't wait for the end of the investigation to then decide and now what to do to help the student they immediately meet with the victim and if they're a minor which is most of the time the parents and say we're just presenting for purposes as a conversation that's happened we want to know how is it affecting your access to education right now so that we can close and remove that gap immediately that must occur under federal law and any changes the by the administration makes with their regulations that are dropping in the next couple of weeks will not change that in fact they will only increase the duties to provide supportive measures that's what we've been shown with the proposed rulemaking is that they are increasing the duties and the obligations of the school's title nine coordinator to redress any sexual harassment that is occurring in the school so we have a very vibrant network and obligation imposed by federal law right now in addition the changes the by the administration are contemplating do address the severe and pervasive standard and I sent to the committee earlier this morning and I recognize I was supposed to get everything to you a day in advance but it was this morning that I saw that a question had been raised on Friday as to what was the content of those regulation changes and so I sent you the summary of major provisions of the DOE's title nine notice of proposed rulemaking and under the proposed regulations they are considering changes to the severe and pervasive standard I'm looking through my notes frankly to find the detail on that precisely but I can also stop and take some questions I know I've been going on sort of monologue and from the video I can't quite read the realm so I will I will pause for a second as I look for that citation yes it's actually right on page one on that document where it says that the current regulations prohibit unwelcome sex-based conduct only if it is so severe pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively denies equal access the proposed regulation would cover harassment that creates a hostile environment that is sufficiently severe pervasive that based on the totality of the circumstances and evaluated subjectively and objectively it limits or denies a person's ability to participate in or benefit from the program much of the testimony that I reviewed centered on concerns that have arisen through the development of the law in the employment law context and I point that out because the considerations in an employee employer situation in terms of being able to regulate behavior and set standards for behavior are unique and different than in the education context when we seek to regulate the behavior of essentially a third party students are not contractors they're not direct employees they're not supervisors imbued with the apparent authority of the school to act and operate on behalf of the school they come to the school with their own values their own backgrounds their own behaviors and so our ability to regulate their behavior must be tied to the educational environment or educational purpose of the school for that reason for example we know that when we attempt to regulate speech through t-shirts or the caring of insignia and things of that sort schools are limited even if those are deeply offensive to other peers in the environment except where the school can demonstrate that those symbols or those pieces of clothing disrupt the education environment and what seems to be proposed or is proposed in the current bill would strip away consideration of impacts in the school at all and simply insist that schools find students as having harassed because of motive alone without consideration the circumstances the impacts and the ongoing dynamic between students and it's our concern that this is going to in fact rebound against expanding rates for the students who you're seeking to help because it's simply going to result in lawsuits filed against schools on constitutional law basis we have already seen the current procedures and policies attacked in litigation by groups like the alliance for the defense of freedom on a constitutional basis but until now none of those have been successful i have strong concerns that with the change to the law that's proposed in this bill which would strip away that link with educational performance access or indeed environment it opens the door to successful litigation and as i always am telling my clients it is super important if you're protecting students to never have to walk back what you have done so i have strong concerns that uncoupling those two concepts with the proposed legislation in an effort to address concerns which largely have arisen and existed only in employment law context and doesn't take into account the current regulatory structure that we have already in place would be misguided and lastly i will say in the 20 years in which i've been doing this work the behaviors that i'm seeing coming across my desk and the volume of those behaviors has certainly arisen in the last three years um that is absolutely true and in conversations with the u.s. departments of education office for civil rights that i had just yesterday i asked them what are they seeing and they admitted that they have had more cases filed nationally in the last 12 months than in the history of that office while they're doing the work with 50 less workforce and my response was that's what we see too more issues to handle under these rules with about 50 less people the turnover in leadership roles in vermont schools across the state is high we have early retirements we have people opting out of the workforce and so those that remain or those who are taking on these positions need training and i spend every fall and every spring i do three three hour sessions all this new material those are not repeats for hazing harassment bullying and then another three three hour sessions on title nine sexual harassment and i see a lot of new faces those are offered statewide via zoom i would welcome any of you if you don't have anything else better to do and i'm sure you do to come to one of those trainings to understand what administrators are doing but the reality is is if i were you know queen or king for a day and able to give schools a tool that could help students immediately it would be to commit resources to fund positions in every school who are devoted to doing this work the work that the schools are already doing under the laws you've already passed you have been at the forefront of this work since 1999 you put on the books a peer harassment statue we are doing the work it is often a question of resources and time and getting those who are new to the positions sufficiently trained and visibit plays a huge role in providing those trainings up and down the state and those trainings um contrary to some of the testimony i've heard are not committed to finding ways to keep schools protected but informing and educating administrators on the rights of students understanding the behaviors that implicate those rights and understanding their own affirmative duties to respond and on that last point i just want to emphasize again schools are not waiting for complaints they're not allowed to wait under title nine and vermont law once they have any information either by witnessing it hearing it second hand having a suspicion once they in the school system as i always say once the information's in the school bloodstream we have a duty to act this is not a complaint driven process we don't wait for something from the student in writing saying i want you to do something about this under vermont law we must act so schools are doing the hard tough work but it does involve an understanding of the rights of all the students involved and parents increasingly are pushing back when we enforce these rules they're taking um their opportunity as is their right to challenge these findings in front of school boards there is a school board run of appeal and go to the boards and say my child did not engage in harassment we don't want this on their record i'm concerned that it will stay on their record and prevent them from getting into college so we need to be very mindful when we in the school do the work that we are doing it properly and carefully but even if harassment isn't found even if bullying is not found if some behavior is happening which is detrimental to the environment the school still will respond so again i i've been going on and i i appreciate your patience thank you for the testimony questions from his land and so if we were to move forward with this language what what situation would you summarize by saying there's already so much being done students in these situations are being captured mislin and by captured i mean you know the situations are being identified uh schools are acting uh and that this in some ways isn't isn't quite isn't at least on the law books isn't a problem no the school has the tools to respond to the kinds of behaviors that were that were described to you you know the sexual assault and the stairwell which i think was in new york case yes we and i say that literally involving me i was responsible for suggesting to aoe that they add the word sexual assault to the definition of sexual harassment in the model policy and therefore since 2015 that has been explicitly considered an act of sexual harassment that requires a school response we have the tools we have the definitions we have the prohibitions largely much of my work relates to educating administrators about the reach and scope of those definitions and additionally helping them develop the systems that will allow for consistent reliable repeatable responses procedurally within the school system like literally where are the forms how do those get delivered by a staff member to an administrator for review within the 24 hours that your statute requires you have a very prompt timeline schools are not allowed to sweep these things under the rug they're required to document what they know and respond within 24 hours but building that procedural system in a school there is not a one-size-fits-all so a lot of my work relates to how do we create those systems if you pass this law however what the law actually does is it says schools can be held legally and financially responsible for the conduct of students whenever the behavior is based on a protected category without consideration to whether or not any and I'm paraphrasing here any harm resulted so when witnesses testify and say and therefore we think this bill simply encourages schools to engage in alternative dispute resolution with the accused and it doesn't require a discipline that's not the legal reality of what this bill usher in if you are saying that after the bill is passed the requirement that the conduct be shown to impact equal access or substantially and adversely affect equal access that those are no longer considerations it just merely needs to be unwelcome conduct based on the students protected category you have made the schools strictly liable for the conduct of minor students individuals again over whom the school does not have the same level of control that they do for employees the changes that are going into law that will affect the employee relationships recognize and reflect that level of control this goes far further and so when faced with this understanding schools are then confronted with if this behavior continues regardless of the harm it causes we're automatically on the hook for this we are incentivized to discipline to stop the behavior and yet the standard in section 570 f does not match the standard by which schools are allowed to discipline students at all so you're creating a really low bar for financial liability but the ability of the schools to in fact regulate the students behavior at issue remains under the 26 a standard so I don't want you to make those two pair up but they are in conflict given the way the bill is written it creates this unequal standard you're responsible for that which you're not empowered to discipline so I see that is a real quandary and it opens the door to all the kinds of first amendment liability and litigation that I alluded to earlier my goal is to have administrators understand the definition respond and act without having to pick up the phone if this is passed on almost every case where there is no discrete effect felt by the victim they're going to have to always answer the question do I act and if I do am I violating a student's constitutional rights because there is no nexus to the educational program or activity that justifies my behavior of regulation and so it's going to create a lot of questions and concerns and I think it's counterproductive to the work that in my view is already occurring with the tools we already have the title nine regulations are going to be substantial the ones that are already in existence are very robust require an expansive deep comprehensive response by schools already and the Biden administration is looking to extend the reach of those regulations to not only address and respond to sexual harassment but all sex-based harassment that means harassment on the basis of sex stereotype sex characteristics pregnancy sexual orientation gender identity so the entire title nine construct which is detailed and intense is going to be expanded for all of those categories understanding and appreciating the reach and impact of those changes I think is absolutely vital and prudent before legislating anything that might graft on or compliment or augment it okay helpful we're hearing again from we're hearing again from the Human Rights Commission tomorrow and Senator Gulick has a constituent possibly that might be available or you're going to reach out so we can hear a little bit from schools but this is this has been helpful this is this is certainly helpful I I just want to say in closing I I never liked being in a position where it appears that an effort to help students is being sidelined or waylaid it is not my intention to stand for the proposition that students don't deserve to be protected from these behaviors it is my position however that you know what is proposed doesn't take into account what already exists and may in fact be counterproductive to those efforts so I appreciate your time and if I could just have a final thought so again this would this would impact the school if the school just simply ignored it in other words kid is called the name terrible name and the school just doesn't act right then that's when it becomes a problem and by act I mean you know that you can understand where that kid would feel so terrible about being called that name they're not taking any steps to separate the kids saying hey you're going to sit at this lunch table they're going to sit at that lunch table really ignoring it right help me out a little bit here if the question is what does the school have to do right now yeah change this law and and that behavior is witnessed which largely it would be okay the school has an affirmative duty because of what you've described to consider and treat that as potentially harassing hazing and bullying behavior to launch an investigation to send letters home to both the parent of the student who's accused and the parent of the student who was on the receiving end of the behavior to speak with those students and anyone else who was present to write up a written report which the hrc can then review an audit which the department of education can audit which the department of education united states office for civil rights can audit they are all interested parties and insist that that paperwork would create be created and declare whether or not the behavior was or wasn't harassment and again even if it weren't isn't damaging and disruptive and if so what are we going to do to prevent a rare occurrence okay so that just so I just so I know Ms. Lynn before you go on that is current law that has to happen school teacher you witness it automatically boom okay yes they always model procedure page one top of the page any employee who witnesses the behavior shall immediately report that is the force of law and then those automatically those letters are sent that's all part of the statute it all kind of rolls out from there okay yes it's helpful it's helpful again take a look at the at the toolkit which creates a narrative of what those duties are and gives you the resources the actual letters that would go out um you know it sort of puts meat on the bones and takes it out of the theoretical website just put vis-vit hhp toolkit and pop up thank you very much good to have you with us thank you all for your time and your work yeah thank you so many thoughts any general thoughts but we're still oh it's fresh get some more testimony yeah we'll hear tomorrow i'm curious this the uh yeah the board's response board's response to this type of well in general she wanted to come in again in response to what was said now to put anybody in the spot but Mr. Glawski who represented the group and so she's going to come in and respond um to that here what she has to say it's an important topic yeah very important topic we keeping you anything else any other thoughts on this at this point senator williams you're okay okay