 All right, welcome everybody to Senate Education. We are live Wednesday, February 28th, June 39th, let's get back from the floor. Couple of just updates for those that are watching our work, S120, that related to post-secondary schools and sexual misconduct. I know that University of Vermont and the network has had some conversations that meeting in tomorrow. I would anticipate a UDRAFT of that it'll respond our arrival back, if not the war in your boxes. And so I will give everybody a heads up so they can review it. CTEs, we're going to take some testimony, a little more testimony today, but I have asked the Secretary of Education to convene a bit of a working group between now and when we get back, just to get everybody on the same page so we can move that. End of the week stuff, I feel like literacy, library, new Americans, technology, that will all move. And then upon our return, miscellaneous head, which I know there are a number of things already in it and I believe there are at least possibly two proposals for additional things in it. So with that, as a quick update and overview, William Smith, Vermont retail numbers, dealers, associations who's sitting behind me has asked a couple of folks to come in to talk a little bit about S3O4, CTEs. And so with that, Bill, are your folks, do you want to say anything before we get going or? If staff has them in the queue, I think we can just go straight to 10 minutes. Sure, go. In this here. In this here. Combs. Combs. Hey, Mr. Combs. There he is. Hey, Mr. Combs. Good to see you. Thank you. Thanks so much for your patience. It's that time of year when we're wrapping things up, before we cross over and we're on the floor. And so thank you for being with us. We, as Mr. Smith has already indicated, you have some testimony regarding S3O4 and CTEs. And so we, I know you have no written testimony, but you'd like to share a few words. And so the floor is yours. Okay, so yeah, I'm a product of the Career Center myself. So I know how important it is for students not wanting to further their education, such as myself back in mid-80s. So I think it's real important and that it's a top priority, number one with making it so that the money's not being tracked from the high school to the career centers. And I say that because I think that the high schools get hung up with losing students to career centers and they tend not to send kids to the career centers where they can learn better and we need to do a better job with making sure our students get what they need versus what the schools need. So first and foremost, the funding will be a huge priority in my opinion. Credits also, the credits need to also be available for students to be able to graduate just like the rest of their fellow classmates by maybe having, I understand that maybe there's math and science currently in like a construction tech class, but we need to add the English credit to that so that kids can maybe spend more time down at these career center classes versus the high school classes because that's where they're gonna learn the best with the hands on. And I'm on the board of directors with Hannaford Career Center here in Middlebury. So I worked pretty closely with the instructor here, Nick Cantrick. And he's telling me that it'd be nice to have the students for a little bit longer periods than just maybe a two hour classroom due to the fact that they just start getting working on, like they work on tiny homes in their shop and they just get started working and they have to clean up for the day. So the longer that they have down there and have more access to hands on and working on these projects, but still being able to get their credit so they can graduate with the rest of their classmates, that would be very helpful. I'd also think that somewhere in the language that we could write that maybe counselors and teachers alike from the high school would go and visit these career centers at least once during the year early on so that they have a good feel for when they have students in their classrooms and talking with them and as they're teaching these kids that they can point these kids in the right direction and get them in these right classes for each student. So I think that it's important for the teachers as well as counselors to visually go down and look at all of what's available in these career centers and that way they can put these kids in a right direction for the best learning. And the other thing that I feel is the earlier we can get these kids involved and at least seeing the programs that are available and the careers that are available for them to be able to stay in Vermont, be productive community members in Vermont and make a good living because you can make a good living in many of the industries that are out there to offer whether it's working for a good roll number or a WW building supply or if it's a contractor, electrician, plumber, you name it. And we all have a stake in this to keep our kids here. We're really aging out. A lot of our contractors that I see are in their 60s and 70s still going strong. However, we're gonna need some younger generation moving in here. Otherwise we're gonna be in trouble later on down the road. And I guess lastly, the thing that I'd like to say and invite everybody is we have a Building Bright Futures event March 26th, it's Tuesday at the Vermont State College in Randolph. And this is a, we've got 140 kids so far signed up to come with their instructors. And we put on a half a day show for these kids that we show them around the campus. We also have different programs set up and we have people in a speaking classroom where they can give testimonials. We're gonna have a lumber person. We're gonna have a road salesman. We're gonna have a contractor so that these kids can come in and talk to these people and listen to the mentors as to the careers that people have put together here in Vermont and done very well for themselves. So I'd put the invite out to all of you folks as well as your colleagues up there that this is our third year running with this and you'll see a lot of kids come through and it's exciting for us to put this on for these kids and this year we actually have a little something special that we've taken on and we're gonna have a shining star from every center. The instructor has picked an individual that really shines above the others and we've gotten some donations from a lot of our suppliers and these kids are gonna end up with a really nice Milwaukee tool belt with all of the proper hand tools in it to get them started in a career and that's gonna be handed out by the instructor of that class and they're gonna be recognized that day at the end of the day. So again, the invite is open to you folks. Thanks, appreciate that. And I think your testimony is also appreciated and very consistent with what we heard around getting kids involved at a young age, getting them engaged. One of the things I'm wondering is how many, you have a sense of the number of kids that you need to turn away every year and say, hey, we just don't have the room or are you able to accommodate everybody? The, with the career center or are you talking about? With the career center. Yeah, we need to work on that obviously as well. I think some of the prerequisite to being in this construction tech is you need to take maybe a mechanical science class for like the ninth and 10th graders, they take that first and then they kind of jump into this other class. So there's several steps and several different teachers that can work through it. Obviously we have to have the staffing just like we do in high schools but I think that that would be a key component as well. Any questions, committee at this point, before we shift? Oh, no, I just wanted to comment on the on the recommendation out counselors visit seats. How's the backup in case the students as a group can't, if the logistics gets you difficult for the students to get to the center, at least the counselors. That's like, I'd say that's like bare minimum, but it's great recommendation. Please interview with the plan. Yeah, I would second what you just said and I would increase it to or expand it to teachers visiting the tech centers because really teachers are connecting with students all the time and they could make a suggestion or yeah, that would be creative. Yeah, I also think that that's key is that not just the counselors but the high school teachers. So they're seeing these kids day in and day out in their classrooms and we really need to get these kids where they're gonna learn the best and a lot of times it is with hands on versus books. And I totally think that the teachers can benefit by just going down and visiting all these opportunities for these kids. Yep. Great. Senator, please. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. I think one thing is more of a general comment. One thing I'd like to explore, I don't know, I don't think that we'll have time to do it within the next week but he's really looking at apprenticeships as well. And the reason I say that is with these businesses, there's definitely a lot of professional and community relationships between the businesses and contractors. And when I'm thinking about some of these centers that have to turn away students, can we create a sort of revolving program or not a revolving program but this a schedule where a student can job shadow a carpenter for example, and we create a certain set of guidelines to make sure that the carpenter is an experience to qualify carpenter, not just a random person who knows how to use the table saw but have a list of contractors who are well qualified and experienced have that student job shadowing that carpenter and then another day during the week going to the classroom and then switching the students who are in the classroom going out and doing actual job shadowing the field or construction sites. I love that idea. Yeah. And I wonder if some of it can be done under flexible pathways, I'm not sure but yeah, it gets them right out. I think it's terrific. Were you gonna comment on that? Yeah, so to answer that, we have been doing that. I last year took three students. They would come here for a week after school for two or three hours they would come and actually work in the yard or I would sit with them and go over what I do during the day as far as placing orders and how I manage inventory and things like that. So we are doing that currently. I've got a really good working relationship with the instructor here. So I see him on a daily basis almost when he comes in for supplies or he calls me or emails me. But we did have three students that came with us for one week and they would switch off the next week it would be a different student and they would learn different parts of our business. And that was really successful and there also is, I know that Dennis Newton Electric does the same thing Salamander Construction is a construction company they are currently doing it as well. So it is being done and that's a great way to get these kids out in the field because I just can't stress enough that a lot of these kids just need to learn with their hands and hands on is how they learn. That's great to hear. Thank you for sharing that. I mean, whatever we can do to support that moving forward, please let us know. Yeah, and I would say one of the things that we should remind the agency of education about is this idea, particularly we're giving the agency or suggesting the agency have a new full-time position for CTEs and it's the governor's recommend this would be a great thing for that person to sort of sink their teeth into and make sure that what Senator Hashim is describing is happening around the state, which I don't think it is but how can we get it more around the state? Yeah, I think that, you know, as a group, our VRLDA board is really working very closely and I know Ed works with a couple of his career centers down south and just all over our state. We've, our board really takes pride in getting these kids educated and in our fields and keeping them here in Vermont. So we are working quite hard on this as a board for Vermont retail lumber dealers. Great, thank you. If you don't mind sticking around, Mr. Combs, we're gonna shift to Mr. Drew and thanks a million for being with us and wondering if you'd like to share your ideas with us with the committee. Yeah, so again, I own two lumber yards here in Southern Vermont, Wyndham County, New Fane and Wellington. Again, like Tim says, we're tied to these, we're two career centers, Brattleboro and then Springfield is the two that we're connected to the most. And then hearing some of his testimony, a lot of it's the same. We go up there, we send a lot of our suppliers to Springfield especially to do seminars on windows, window installations, we do roofing things with them. So they get, we're involved in doing a lot of that ourselves and more than willing to do it. Or one thing that you mentioned about kids being turned away, being on the Springfield board of that one, they had trouble getting enough kids there here a few years ago. It is now turning around, I think, because it is being to the forefront. More kids are being exposed to it than they have been. Again, they need to be exposed earlier. They need to be exposed to things that they need to learn just to get out into the field every day. Even if they don't get into necessarily a career in this, it's a lifelong thing that is so important to every student, I think. Just learning how to read a ruler is just something they can take along with them that we don't see happening. I think that the funding really needs to turn to these career centers. I think that's a major part of what's been lacking for our high schools to make sure that our students are exposed to that. But again, I think this is a step in the right direction seeing this bill. Yeah, I appreciate that. And are you both in Wyndham County? No. Yeah, I'm in Addison County. And I agree, we agree to have all kids exposed and at least have that opportunity to experience it. It's such a, so much of Vermont, I feel our educational philosophy is rooted in John Dewey, this learning by doing and the more kids, again, at any skill level, any academic level, go and learn the things that you're all teaching, it's going to feed them with what's happening, it's going to feed the classroom and then certainly feed their lives afterwards. So it's, I really appreciate your support on this. And I agree, it's great, it's front and center. This is one of the first times I think in my 14 years in the building that CTEs are really front and center in the legislature. So looking forward to seeing what the next few months bring and what our final product looks like. Anything else, committee? Mr. Smith, anything else? Oh, thank you, Mr. Sharp. Yeah, it's been terrific. Thank you both very much. And please, we encourage you to continue to follow our work as much as you can. And if as we're making our way toward a final product, we may reach back out to you for additional testimony. But in the meantime, just please accept our gratitude. Well, thanks for your time. Great. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for your time. Bye now. Thank you. Is that all right? Are you going to join us? No, we don't get you in the chair much, do we? No, usually just watching. So it's my pleasure to be here today. Well, it's we're thrilled that you're here and you're coming in on electronic devices. You and I had a conversation a little bit this morning. And to remind everybody, we'll have a walkthrough of what the bill looks like later. And I do for schedules and really going to try to move things along as quickly as possible so that we can pull out of here and just average anything. Your thoughts on 284. And I think you also have correct me if I'm wrong, some thoughts on 204 that you want to. I do. And Senator Keohok and I touch base on that too. If you touch base on it, that might be enough for us. I'm fine to move this along. I'll stay for the record. I'm Karen Finmerman, Director of Policy Services and Legislative Affairs at Vermont School Board Association. You're all looking at my testimony. I'm just going to give a kind of a little background. We, 5D, I mean, I worked with Chelsea Meyers with Vermont Super Defense Association just to draft some suggested language, just to give everybody kind of a sense of what we were thinking. I just want to reiterate that we're not here to support or oppose the draft. We just wanted to share our concern for your consideration. So as you know, the draft tasks the AOE with drafting a model policy regarding cell phone use in schools, draft 1.1 says that, you know, the minimum requirements for the policy are all articulated in the bill, things like, you know, storage location, consequences for violation, family communication channels, et cetera. Those are pretty specific. And we believe that those details are better addressed through guidance from the Agency of Education. So school district policy provides overall direction with school administrators. Example, like an example of a policy in this area would be, you know, no cell phones during class time or no cell phones during the school day. And the responsibility of that how to carry out the policy rests with the superintendent. So really the way we think about it is policy is meant to endure for a period of time. And then the procedures can be more flexible. So as an example, if the policy that came out of AOE were to say, you know, no cell phones during the day and all students must put their phones in a yonder bag. Well, what happens next year when yonder bags are no longer what students, you know, like the preferred method of, you know, preventing students from using their phones. So a policy and when you're having these conversations at the community level, it would look like where does our community like sit with us, right? What do we feel like, you know, is an acceptable amount of use, no use, some use, you know, and those would get ironed out in the policy. But then the how are we going to implement this in the schools would be up to the superintendents. And if the agency of education wants to provide guidance, that's fine. But that's why we set out the law so that it's clear what should go in the policy and then what would be left for guidance. And we used guidance as opposed to procedures because it's our understanding that some schools are dealing with this not through procedures but through student code of conduct. So guidance just gives school flexibility. Yeah, and just to remind, and I know you know this from our conversation of having followed it, but others watching, this guidance that we're coming up with is just to, again, help districts that are struggling that would, frankly, don't have the time but given every other constraint on their schedule. And you are looking in terms of, this is an actual language that you're suggesting the fine language could be in search, yeah. Yeah, we just wanted to make it easy because we know you're trying to get this spell out. So. Easy is great. Yeah, yeah. Hard is bad. Okay, great. Any questions for Ms. Zimmerman or hate concerns? Please. Where do you look? I'm looking. I see that we have draft 2.1 and your testimony reference. That is 1.1.1. I just want to make sure nothing's getting lost in what you wanted to share with us versus what we have on the book. I don't think so. Can't remember what has changed on its way from draft to draft and that may have been a typo on my part 2. I don't think so unless, no, I don't think so. Because we just got to, oh, you did. Okay, all right. So I have not had a chance to look at it yet. Unless you've changed what should go in policy and what should go in guidance, I would say this probably still work. Because it's really not, we're not making changes to the film. We're just kind of offering some suggestions for how it's organized. Okay. Okay. Welcome. All right. Let's walk us through this afternoon. Thank you. Unless there's great objections. Yeah. Great. It's amazing. Okay. The St. James, I know we're a little bit off here, Morgan. Is she ready to take us through new American advancement? She said she'd be here to take her to the team. Okay. So if she would, we'll wait for that. In the meantime, S204, reading, assessment and intervention. Josh. Juliet. How are you? Hi, how's it going? For the record, Andrew. Andrew Proutin, Assistant Director of Education Quality. Yeah, Josh actually got called in to House Ed today. So we kind of split it up. So. Okay. Just give me one second, Josh. I just wanted to get to our most recent draft. There's a chance that. Yeah, I don't think that this drafted it because, I'll tell you why, because I email, hold on, I'll make an email that I have. There's very good this. No problem. Well, let's just look in. Just want to, is Nancy here? Yeah. Parika, back Keith. Okay. S204, 2.1, that just got put in our fault, right? That is correct. And what's going to happen, Senator, is, between 3 to Keith, probably in 330, Beth will come down, just walk us through, through the whole thing and see where we're present. All right. Please, Senator Pio. I told her I was going to do a close read on the new draft and then get back, work it on the floor, went on pretty long and then get that chance to, so I'm sorry, I can't even, I have a copy of it here, so I can set it to Morgan and Katie. No, what I'm wondering is, and maybe we'll just hold on for one second. Andrew, tell us a little bit first about what you would like to say and your questions or concerns. And I'm wondering if Senator Pio, if you want to take them up, is there something in particular that you were interested in? Well, it was really on the advice of Kara Zimmerman, the forward language. Did you want to speak to that? That was the new language that I asked to put in there. Oh, you mean for S204? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I can have an indelible opinion. Morgan gave us the most recent, is that going to be too confusing for people or is it easier for you just to sort of tell everybody a little bit of the background? Sure. We can do that. Yeah. I can give you the background. Okay. Why don't you go ahead, Senator Pio? So it was just about the board, the school board and who drafts policies. Is it at a district level or a board level similar to the conversation that we just had? When you're on a school board, you often say, you often put your, make sure that you stay in your lane and that you don't get operational. And so that's what we wanted to try to look away is having school board is acting as school districts and not making sure just that they're not getting operational. So that's what this new language is about. So, and do we have a copy of just that new language or do you want to read it to us? It's, sure. It's can, let's see, age, if you're looking at the bill, it says age four of the bill and it's line three. Now wait, let's put that further. Sixty, each local school district can approve the independent school shall engage local state. Hold on, that's not, sorry. That's okay. Oh, she just, all she did was removed the word board, sorry, from age five, line eight, the draft, well, point one. So that was one copy. That was the age. Is that okay? Sure, yeah. And wait, which bill are we, we're looking at 204, yeah, draft 4.1. Is that the most recent you have? The most recent I have is, we have read one. Yeah, let me send this little grand sky. So we're going to have a, Senator DeWitt has 4.1, we'll print that up and then we can all take a look at it. Senate Education 319, we're looking at draft 4.1 of S204, part of our literacy bill, and Senator DeWitt, if you would just lead us through the sections that you want us to take a look at, that'd be great. So there are some small changes in yellow that you can see. But, well, yeah, let's just go through. All right, so page one is the same. Yeah. Page two is the same. Page three is the same. Or, this goes back just to refocus us to the part that you were talking about before we went off around. Well, no, this part here on page four is, I mean, I can try to really balance this bill between, you know, my constituents, reading experts, and then the AOE and the folks on the ground doing the work. It's a balancing act. And it's hard to get it right. So we're doing our best, but we did a lot of folks who are very, very passionate about calling out a particular way of teaching, reading, which is harmful to kids. And would you just say what that is? Because I think we've all got emails to talk about. Right, the three killing systems. So thank you. I try to find some language that would be, would mention it as something to not use and avoid without, you know, trying to be too prohibitive. So the language that you see now, and maybe Beth was gonna get to this, but public and approved independent schools shall not use instructional strategies that do not have an evidence base such as three killing systems. So it's just there as an example of a strategy that is not founded or based in evidence. So that was one change that was worked on. And I'll let Beth go through the smaller changes there. And then down further each local school district and approved independent schools shall engage local stakeholders to discuss the importance of reading and solicit suggestions for improving literacy and plans to increase reading proficiency. This takes out really specific language that was in the draft before around the local literacy plan. And again, that was, this was a hard decision to make, but this just allows for more inclusivity between local school districts and approved independent schools. So we thought, I thought that was good. So why was the challenge with it? Tell me. Well, my sense is, and I could be wrong and the experts can weigh in, but my sense was that if you point specifically to the local reading plan, and I'm not sure if I'm getting the language exactly right, but that independent schools wouldn't have been included in that language because it's something that is necessary or required for public schools, but not independent schools. So by making this language a little bit less prescriptive means that everyone can be included. And St. James, would you add to that since you were in the drafter? Tell us the before and after. That's St. James Office of Legislative Council. So the language that you see in on page five, the section F. Actually, it's page four, so section F. Yeah, we're off by, for some reason, we're off by the age. What drafter you were in? 4.9.1. Okay, so nice. Do you have it posted on your website? I believe it is. Do you don't? I'm gonna hand you my copy. Well, I'm sorry. I think I'm looking at what's posted is the same as what I have. So, subsection F, let's just go with subsections. I'm gonna make you all work. Subsection F, each local school district in approved independent school shall engage local stakeholders to discuss the importance of reading and solicit suggestions for approving literacy and plans to increase reading proficiency. That's language that's actually taken directly from the bill is introduced. The prior language, red, each local school district in approved independent school shall engage local stakeholders through the needs assessment and asset mapping processes when developing a local literacy plan to improve reading proficiency. So the needs assessment, asset mapping process and local literacy plan are concepts that are specific to the public level of those things. So the theory behind this language change is public schools could still do that to fulfill subsection F. Approved independent schools are still required to engage stakeholders, but there's no specificity on how they do that. Great. I think for me, it is still the big question even this Senate bill can help stakeholders. What does section F on the ground really look like? That's the part that's a little confusing to me because when I look at it, I think, oh, it means gauging businesses, the community, everybody in literacy. I mean, I think the stakeholders are pretty prescribed through the needs assessment and asset mapping process, but this, because we take that, we take that out if it gives people leeway. It looks like this is our only one statement. Yeah, I just want to say, did you want to first? No, okay. When Carmelie, I'm the advisory, the chair, but the advisory council on literacy and a curriculum director, and we do needs assessment and mapping. Stakeholders is part of our requirement that we have when we have federal dollars. We have to do stakeholder engagement for various pieces. So as we develop plans, we have to do outreach, sometimes to specific subgroups or specific... Please tell us who they are. Like who are the people that are... Maybe you would reach out to homeless organizations, organizations that support poverty, organizations that support equity, it could be business instead. So you're trying to invite comment on, as we develop plans, in this case, in the area of literacy, in order to develop and finalize our... We're trying to meet the needs of community. Got it. Our students various needs. So this is just in terms of these folks will be engaged during the stakeholder process where if you're gathering information. Correct. That kind of thing. Pre-planning. Pre-planning. Yeah. And planning. There's a new funnel. Great, great. But to Senator Campion's question, is this foresee that this could cause confusion in districts? No, I actually, I... It's good. I know when you said less prescriptive, I think that is extremely helpful. Okay, great. Beautiful. Anything else on 204 right now? Yes. Okay. There was the next page on page five at the top. Kara, did you want to speak for that one? I'm happy to speak to it if it's helpful for... It was year 16. Yeah, so it's so... It's not highlighted, is it new? Yeah. I highlighted it. Right, you highlighted George, which is great, but the rest was... You took out a word out of it. You're a little bracket serious. You took out a word. I'm not ready to give that to her today. Okay. Yeah, of all the changes, this is probably one of the smaller ones, but I just lagged dead for consideration. Please. Now it reads each local school district and approved independent school shall engage local stakeholders. Oh my gosh. So I have age. That's not what it... Where? It begins each supervisor. Sorry. Yeah, I was reading that language. Each supervisor union and approved independent school shall annually report in writing to the agency the following information in prior year performance by school. The earlier versions that each supervisor union forward and approved independent school. And what I had lagged was just that school boards aren't in possession of the data. That's a responsibility of the superintendent. So the word was removed and we are happy with the new version. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Sure, thank you. Ms. Kamoli, come on up. We've been with all this and then we'll move to you. We're gonna have one sit there. Andrew, are you ready to jump in? Yeah, absolutely. And Andrew, have you seen 4.1? Just emailed it to you. Yeah, I'm going through that right now. Okay. So thanks, buddy. I think it's in our folder, Joe, ready. I appreciate bringing extra copies. Oh, there you go. Back on, yeah. I'm gonna go to Andrew's first and we're gonna go right over to you. Andrew, thoughts on 4.1? Yeah, so the prompt kind of given to me it would... I actually should reintroduce myself, right? Since you went on break. Andrew Prouton, I'm the Assistant Director of the Education Quality Division at the Agency of Education. So when I was scheduled, it was to speak about our data collection around teaching licenses in relation to this bill. So I actually wasn't sure if there were specific questions. I have a couple of different thoughts depending on what would be most helpful for you on sort of the conversations we're having around this and the guidance that my office would be giving. Yeah, so I think the question came up last week and maybe it's been a little bit in the air in the State House, is there a connection to teacher licensure and this bill? Are we making that connection at all? I'm looking at Senator, I'm looking at Senator St. James in the back. The St. James, are we making that connection at all? Is there any connection to teacher licensure in this? That's St. James Office of Legislative Counsel. I, S-303 is a very large connection to teacher licensing. This is the connection to teacher licensing in that you are requiring them to do something in the use of their license. But I am not seeing anything in S-204 that I would say is a licensing requirement. And I think that's- Oh, please, go ahead. I'm sorry, subsection G on page, well, page five on what is posted on your website. The subsection G does say the agency shall provide professional learning opportunities for educators with evidence-based reading and instructional practices that address the area of veneemic awareness, trauma-exclusive vocabulary and comprehension. That is essentially what S-303 is doing. Right, right, right. I'm just scrolling here. I don't see anything in here that's tied directly to licensing other than subsection G. Yeah, I know it's, and I think that was one of the questions. And that's why we had you come in, Andrew, unless you have other big concerns about this bill at this point, I don't know if we need you. I mean, that's where we are at this point. We are looking for big major concerns, things that are going to come up on the floor, et cetera. Anything from your end? Not from a licensing perspective. I know that in earlier draft, it looks like it's not in there anymore was a recommendation around reading specialists, but I don't think that's a concern. I'll send this version to the Emily's and folks within student pathways to make sure they have eyes on it and can relay any concerns from that team. Right, because I think we're getting close. We're going to hear from Ms. Carmoly, who's going to probably, again, just, there's a few suggestions. Independent school folks are coming in tomorrow and then I'm hoping we are done. Ms. Carmoly. All right. Thanks. See you later. Bye. Thank you. I only have a few comments. And really, I'm here for any questions as you're in the final phases of loading this. You have a few different literacy bills that we know that you're working through. My first comment is, thank you so much. This is huge work that you're doing. And you've created a lot of energy and resource in literacy across the state by the use of the Act 28, the funds at the Agency of Education to create resources to have the professional learning modules created to create the advisory council on literacy. And it's a collective, and I would say, pretty unifying energy around improving those. That's really exciting. So thank you so much for that. Last time I was here, you gave me an A. I'm going to give myself a C plus starting, but I'm going to see how I get the C plus starting. C plus is because I was in a really big hurry. It wasn't sure I was going to make it today. So I threw together a testimony and I'm noticing templates. Oh, and that's going to drive you crazy. So I promise I'm not going to clean up copies anymore. No, we won't. Morgan did, though. There's areas to consider. One, you addressed, which was about that data collection from the school board striking the word board. Thank you. Another one I think you've addressed and Senator Bullock, I think you were really describing this, as you've been doing that balancing act. You've been taking hope and a lot of input and then requirement and trying to work that together. And I think you've done a really nice job. I mean, it's a really great job. My favorite is Wall Street. Yeah. Thank you. So when that point about what we're trying to do in this bill is do a universal literacy screening that includes the screening for dyslexia characteristics. Yeah. It is not necessarily a single dyslexia screener, nor is it the identification. And you've done a really nice job of doing that, which then says, which I would add is complicated. I know it really has. And it is much more complicated than I ever realized. So thanks. Yeah. And then their follow-up screening or follow-up assessment that happens if a student is not showing up on grade level or at the benchmark on those characteristics and on the grade level, and then systems of support. So all of that work that you're doing is really helping us align with existing requirements we have in MTSS at 173 and on evidence-based practices, which is part of our federal department. So thank you. My broad recommendation is if there are additional requests, think about broad policy and then resources and recommendations that come from the agency. Instead of trying to stuff everything into the bill. Massachusetts would be my example. They have a very short policy. They have some of the leading assessment results on grade four and grade eight. They have been number one or in the top three for about a decade. They are very strong. They have a very short policy. And then they have excellent resources on literacy instruction and on dyslexia, resources to dyslexia. So when I'm often looking for resources, I'm usually looking at it. So just think broad, if extra stuff keeps coming this way, think about how you could have the less is more in this case, and then how we can provide the specifics in the resources at the agency. Juan, do you want to do extra? No, I'm going to ask your question. Yeah, please. Of course. So thank you so much, Juan. I really appreciate your help with this all along the whole journey. Ron, help at this point is giving me heart palpitation. Okay, I won't go too far. Very, very specific comments. So if we could just look at your second bullet point. Yes. Is there specific language that you would like us to adopt that isn't here? And if so, where would it be? I was working at 3.1, so I'm not at 4.1, and I do not have either of the copies with me. There was, at one point, it said universal dyslexia screening. We took that out. Okay, perfect. So then I think it's been addressed. Okay, super. And then the third, I mean, I think I hear what you're saying is like, instead of this being like an eight page bill, maybe it should be like two or three pages. Well, when you get close to the end, sometimes people bring a lot of new ideas as I come to this, I think you're on a good path and hold the course. Fantastic, great. So we've taken care of all of this. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any other questions for Ms. Cremoli? Great. So 303, just want to give us a little something. Okay. So there I was, I was building off the testimony that Vermont Superintendents Association and Vermont Transportation Association did. And the advisory council on literacy is very supportive of professional learning for the educators who are providing literacy and for others as well. But to require the full 46 hours of training for all of the educators may not be, it may not be the best use of their time. And what I would say from a curriculum point of view, we have a lot of professional learning that we have to provide, literacy, mathematics, multi-tier systems of support, social-emotional learning, equity, all of those are requirements. And so how to get all of this in is part of the Jenga puzzle that we're doing. So if there's a way to consider, could you narrow that? So perhaps a elementary and any teacher of literacy or something to that that would do the full set of literacy modules or professional learning. And then maybe secondary grades six to 12 might do or the teachers who are not doing literacy might only do four hours. Yeah, I get what you're saying. I think before we're asked to make those decisions, but we have to look at everything. You know, we have the direct simple module and say, hey, this is appropriate for this, but I have no issue with giving the agency flexibility on this and having them, just like we're having them decide, you know, give a three credit force at Champlain, qualifies and gets them up to speed of fitting. That's okay. Yeah. Ms. St. James, please. About St. James Autoclip Literature Council. So there was language in one of the original drafts that directed AOE make recommendations to the standards board regarding specific continuing education requirements by endorsement. And I had some concern about the way that the language was worded. I had some concern about jurisdiction regarding licensing requirements, living with the standards board and AOE. So all of that, there was some language in previous drafts. AOE asked me to pull that language because they have the ability to do that to make recommendations. And I would obviously encourage you to hear from the agency, but I believe that it is their plan to make recommendations related to literacy continuing education and tie those recommendations to endorsements. What that looks like beyond that broad statement, I don't know. I think... So right now, if the agency, once this has passed sign, the agency can say, hey, or K through three, we want you to do, or they can make recommendations to standards board and then they would make that decision. So these decisions lie within the standards board. Licensing requirement. Yeah. And I believe that hides in continuing education. Yeah, no, okay. The jurisdiction for that is pretty clear with the standards board, but I believe that AOE intends to make recommendations to that. I'm feeling okay, but yeah, please go ahead. Okay, maybe section two is still entitled, mandatory completion of literacy modules. Right, and I want to change that. It just sounds very... We're in three of three. Yeah, 6.4 and 6.1. And I think you would... One second. What page is that? Oh, right on the first page. I don't know. Well, we're still right, right. So we're not mandating modules, we're mandating. They want, we want them to do something, whether it's the classic Champlain, whatever the agency would recommend the standards or then signed off to it, please go ahead. I was thinking you could perhaps say literacy professionals, and then that gives you some flexibility. So I think that the theme is, is there a way to create some flexibility instead of saying all educators are always educators are already broader than, and not being as specific as literacy modules. So just a completion of literacy professional learning for professional development. Or just literacy professional learning, just that. Literacy professional learning. So it's, but it is mandatory, right? Something is we're getting everybody out to speak, but then again, there might be people that are already able to speak, is that what you're saying? There may be. Okay. And there may be some people, so I'm imagining some of our unified arts, art, music, physical education. They are working with our students, but they are not teaching one of the core content. They're teaching their content area, which is fiscal education or something dramatic stuff. They may not need the full. So literacy professional group. Okay, thank you. Anything else, Ms. Carmoly? Just, this is something that I would say our professional organization, the Vermont Crucial Leaders would say, when there are new requirements, and if requires funding, if there's a way to, as you're building a new requirement, then consider the funding that comes from that for the kids. Thank you. That's my. Yeah, so we are gonna have in this, when we combine them, you will see 303 will go into 204 and we will attach a position. Position isn't already in there. Or full time. Yes. It's really basically solidified with the position that's held right now by Ms. Lap. Yes, the project manager. Yeah. And I think you'll see other literacy things, perhaps in other bills. And then other funding. Tell me specifically what you're thinking. If you were just to specify a particular, you do not, but if you were to say that everyone needs to use this particular assessment, you would need, I would recommend that you provide funding for that, but that had to be an adjustment on the ground. In the case of, this is a, if it was a full 46 hours for all educators, we would have probably need some release time, some substitute, some sort of dollars back to the school systems in order to provide that. So those are the types of things to do. Good point. Yeah, it's really important. You don't want people doing it at vacation, frankly. You know, we don't. I mean, we don't want, you know, this is, people are already under a lot of stress and have a big workload, taking away vacation time to do 46 hours, as we're hoping to figure out. So the two teachers are sensitive. Yeah. And they're having it is difficult finding the substitute teacher. So as you consider adding something in, so an example of that is, and thank you, the advisory council of literacy, they're considering keeping that in there. Just the funding for the small daily rate for the council members, it's a very minimal fee, but it's a nice incentive in recognition. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. This might be a question for AOE and not you, I'm not sure. Okay. The modules, the actual modules, the state of Vermont own those now as to be open. So they own them. I believe for a stretch of time, it's even four or five years, but I believe what they don't own is a platform. So the funding in order to deliver the modules, I believe ends with the SRF fund. But that is something you- Say that last bit again. The modules, they are owned for a stretch of time. Yeah. They're being rented. Correct. And there is a platform that they go with, but I believe that the funding for the platform goes away. So there needs to be funding. It's called PEPR, I believe. Okay. I don't know the amount, I don't know the cycle of renewal, but I believe that the platform needs to be- We talked to this last year about it. I would like to do that. I'm just concerned tying any kind of requirements to these modules if they're not, if they may not be here in perpetuity for us. Right. I think you've discussed some other ways, some other possibilities. Right, yeah. The professional learning, there are other organizations providing that, there are other state agencies that have professional, there are a number of resources on our state agency. So there are other way, there are courses you could take both in-person or online. Some have may have already come with their expertise, they may have a reading specialist and endorsement. So there are other ways to- It still is, I'm glad you raised it. Still a question. I don't know how this works in other states with other trainings, if this is standard. I mean, we made a big investment. And I guess I thought we own them in a different way. So, okay. Please. Process questions. At what point do we anticipate combining 303 with 204? I'm hoping today we might be able to do it, if the committee's comfortable with saying, given the amendments, given everything we've talked about, if we have a motion that we put 302, 303 into 204, but I'm not sure if there's anybody. I mean, that's sort of been our plan all along. And I'm just looking to see if there's any real concern about it. We wait until tomorrow. I just wanted to- Sure, one absolute free drafts. And remember, we wouldn't have a vote on a final bill. Right. Until Friday, right? Yeah. But yes. Yeah. A couple of weeks ago, we had a question was raised about what's here with home schools. Yeah. And I'm not sure if that was ever really a draft or just like not. It's a big question. Yeah. So we do have them coming in, you know, next or 303, but not necessarily on this topic, but we can pull them in a little bit to have the opposition around this because we wanted to make sure that everybody, you know, want because it helps kids, maybe homeschool, but I don't know if they're not getting these. I did research this a little bit. So homeschoolers do not have the same requirements. They do have a requirement to register their plan or develop their plan, but they do not have requirements to do the same finding professional learning or to follow what's outlined by the approved public schools or the public schools are approved in the pendant school. So I don't know how to create that. Yeah. And that's up to you. Yeah. It's something that we will work on. It is not. They're not perfect. And it might be something we have the house do depending on timing, but this committee wants to put in, that's fine too. It's a curiosity question. How old is three Q concept? That was in, right? I have no idea. I can look it up. Do you know, Ms. Carmel? Well, I don't know the specific year, but I was early 90s, I believe. There are two major publishers that have been using that. It sort of came out of, there was some very specific, very tight instruction that was kind of scale-based. It wasn't getting enough on the broad reading and understanding. And so the intention, I believe it's not reading for understanding, but what it missed was how to build some of those skills, those foundational skills that are critical. But I believe that it's the process or those two publishing companies were doing it in that early 90s and forward. Thank you. So, Molly, are you good for now? I am, can you have any? No, if you would mind sticking around, that would be terrific. I'm going to shift because we have had folks here for a while, but before we do so, Miss St. James, you were here to walk us through 303 and 284. I also don't want to hold you up. There have been changes to 204 based on the conversation we just had. And there have been at least one change titled to 303. Do you mind coming back tomorrow with the new clear drafts of, with changes and edits? Yes, I think you have them all. I think you have everything, but if you'd like me to come back tomorrow, I'm happy to do that. So let me just make sure. One note on age four. So there have been no changes made to S204 just based on this conversation. Oh, no. Thank you. And then 303, the only change is the title on section two. Correct, but there have been other changes. I understand that. And anything else though that the committee wants to discuss or raise on these two bills at this point, otherwise I think we're going to wait and hear or walk through tomorrow. We do have witnesses who are here and a person that I'd like to hear from. That's fine. You also had me on two other bills. Did you still need me on those? Yeah, so we have you on, well, we have you on 284 and 191. I think we'll do all the walkthroughs tomorrow. Okay. Let's do some shifts and adjustments. I think you're done for now. And we'll shift to homeschooling and ask, is it new draft sheet? Yes. Hi, do you want to join us? Hi, good to see you again. Please come on up. Hope that feels okay. I think we're getting to a good spot. And you can look them both over. Yeah. And then we can just make that motion and get some more testimony. How are you? Sorry, how are you? It's good to see you. We met. Oh. Were you in Bennington at one point? Yes, it was, we'll see you all. That's right. Anniversary. That's right, yes. Nice to see you again. Good to see you again. We'll go around and introduce ourselves just so you know everyone around the table. Hi, we've met. Good to see you. It's good to see you. Hi, I'm Martine. I think we've met in Caldwell there. Yes, yeah. Brian, Bennington County. Bennington. Dave Weeks, Rowland County. This is Sheridan Williams, Rowland County. So we have news, thank you for coming in around homeschooling and educational. And the flag is the title. I also have Nancy Miller here as well. Nancy, if you want to come up together, is that for a little picture right there? As long as you're both comfortable with that. We certainly are. And we are talking, if we go to Senator Sheehy, and then I think there's some concern out there broadly around whether or not we need to make some changes to our homeschooling policy that was altered last year. And I appreciate you coming in and we'd love to know what you're seeing on the ground, concerns. For George. Thank you. It's good to see all of you for the record. My name is Erica Radke, and I'm deputy commissioner of the Family Services Division of DCF, and I have with me Nancy Miller, who is our child safety manager as well. Really, what we want to talk to you about today is the elimination of the supervisory rules around homeschooling, and the question of whether educational neglect that may occur because of that absence. And I do want to start by noting that FSD screening criteria and report acceptance guidance, they have not changed following the agency of education's updated statute. If there's a report alleging educational neglect and we learn that the child is enrolled in a approved home study program of ALE, we don't accept the report and we don't do any further assessment of the quality of the home education, home school education. Our staff, they're not educators. We don't have experience in evaluating curricula, but however, if there is a report alleging educational neglect and we do accept it, and then you discover that the child is enrolled in a home study program through ALE and we verify this information with ALE, faring any other child abuse and neglect agency, then we close out our chance to be educational neglect assessment. FSD's understanding of Act 66 of 2023 is that the parent must provide a signed statement that the child's progress in the home study program is being assessed and that the parent must maintain records of the assessments. This can include a standardized assessment administered by the school, a licensed teacher reviewing the student's progress, a portfolio of work including a summary of learning provided by the parent, or grades from an online school or GUD. So FSD, we wouldn't revisit a report about educational neglect unless the school district for ALE made a subsequent report indicating the attestation of academic progress suggested some kind of educational neglect, which would need to include some evidence of negligence. And so that's really the standard that we're working under in terms of we don't necessarily pursue these kinds of issues unless there's an additional evidence of negligence for educational neglect. I will turn it over to Nancy now who'll talk really more specifics about how we assess educational neglect at that stage. Great, thank you Erika and thank you for having us. So I'm gonna talk a little bit initially about statutory authority. So title 33, chapters 49 and chapter 51, grant the department for children and families the authority to conduct assessments regarding the welfare of a child. So the focus of chapter 49 is in the child abuse and neglect with definitions of child abuse and neglect defined in 33 BSA 49-12. So examples include physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment, neglect, and risk of harm. The department may also conduct an assessment under the authority of 33 BSA 5106. And the focus of this assessment is on whether a child may be in need of care and supervision. So examples of that include lack of parental capacity, substance exposed newborns, caretakers behavior, suggesting a child may be without proper parental care, and educational neglect. So educational neglect falls under the 5106 as opposed to the 49-12. Educational neglect is not by definition in the state of Vermont form of abuse and neglect in chapter 49, but we do have the statutory authority under 5106 to it that's it. So it's important to mention though that educational neglect is always assessed in partnership with the school. Our assessments really focus on addressing the barriers to the child's attending school and supporting the family addressing those barriers, not the education itself that the child is receiving or is not receiving. So screening, reporting to the acceptance of criteria, a report of educational neglect is considered for acceptance when it is alleged that a parent or a person responsible for a child's care knowingly fails to enroll a child in school or to provide education in accordance with 16 BSA 121. Through the parents or caretakers action or inaction, the child is regularly failing to attend school. Educational neglect is considered for children beginning of the age six until the completion of sixth grade where the expectation that the parent or the caretaker is responsible for getting the child to school and the parent or caretakers behaviors have contributed to the child's life of attendance. The parent is responsible for the child's attendance at a public school and approved or recognized independent school or a home study program for the full number of days which that school is held unless the child is mentally or physically unable to attend or has completed the 10th grade or is excused by the superintendent or a majority of the school directors. Four is enrolled in and attending post-secondary school which is approved and accredited in Vermont or another state. Educational neglect is reserved for children age six through sixth grade or through the end of sixth grade. Beginning at grade seven lack of school attendance for 20 or more days not due to illness or super-fast suspension is considered truancy and Family Services Division defers to the school to refer that matter to the local state's attorney to file a truancy petition of the court. Truuancy applies to youth from grade seven up until age 16 who are registered for school and not attending. So when we receive a report about education on the black and child protection hotline, we ask the following questions. Is the child or youth registered for school? What is the total number of absences? How does the school measure absences? And what is the parent or guardian's explanation for the absences? How many of the absences were due to medical or psychiatric condition and has the school verified this with the provider? And what steps have been taken by the school thus far to address school attendance? What communication or attempts at communication that the parents have occurred and then how have the parents responded to those attempts? We also want to know if the child receives any special accommodations for services that are home made to deliver to school such as the patient therapy, physical therapy, et cetera. Just some data, going back to 2018. And this data is in the written testimony which was submitted a couple of weeks ago. The numbers, let's see. So you'll see there's a little bit of a dip in 2019. So in 2018, we accepted 114 assessments. In 2019, we accepted 96. And these are all educational neglect assessments. In 2020, we had 139. In 2021, we had 167. 126. In 2022, we had 126. And then last year, we had 150. So we do have, we have seen some inconsistency and variations across school districts when receiving reports of educational neglect. So one of those pockets of variation is around how absences are counted and defined. So what is excused versus unexcused? What that means varies depending on the school. So some schools no longer differentiate between excused and unexcused absences. And this varies by district. Some schools will send letters after five days or 10 days, I'm sorry, 15 or 20 absences. Some schools will make calls to the parent in conjunction with the letters. Some schools will make calls to the parent without writing any letters. And some schools employ a home visit as part of their efforts. And the home visit can be conducted by a school principal or guidance counselor or a school resource officer. We are noting that there seems to be many schools that no longer have the school resource officer position. Some schools unenroll students after 10 consecutive absences when the reasons for the absence is deemed insufficient. So these differences result in disfaring for students across the state. Sometimes even within the same county. Some schools make a report to the division before 20 days of unexcused absences and then others wait for longer for various reasons including not wanting to damage their relationship with family. So we are hearing in Chittenden County anecdotally that the majority of the educational neglect reports we are receiving are coming from school districts with more people of color, higher rates of poverty and more housing insecurity or rental housing versus communities with more home housing. So post COVID-19 pandemic we've seen an increase in reports of educational neglect related to children's mental health issues and school refusal. And this results in reports being accepted for educational neglect assessment with their purpose of supporting the family to access mental health services which are generally more difficult to access compared to pre-2020. So yeah, thank you. So I'm just thinking on the question that I know you all are wrapping with this. Should the family services division respond to concerns about inadequate home study progress? And I'm thinking about the role of FSD in the area of education. It's important to pause and think about the ultimate goal and ensuring that the state of Vermont is using the right tool for the job. We all want children to receive a quality education within the context of their families and want families that have strong connections to their communities and to avail themselves of services that are there to help them to meet their basic needs. As the Child Safety Intervention conducted by the Child Protection Agency may not be the best tool to support family towards those educational goals. We all know there's a perception of the community about what it means to have a family services worker or not brought before. As much as we try to engage families and support prevention efforts towards child wellbeing, the reality is that we are the Child Protection Agency. Our involvement is non-voluntary and it often comes with some apprehension on our families. Non-voluntary government intervention is a tool we really believe should be reserved for matters related to child safety and public safety. Reports of educational neglect detract from the Child Protection Agency. Given that a vision like many other agencies is operating with a diminished capacity, we're really focusing our efforts on child safety and fulfilling our mandate to respond to child abuse and neglect. It undermines our ability to keep children safe when our scope of work exceeds our core mission. It's not and really shouldn't be FSD's place to qualitatively evaluate a home study program and to ensure that children needing age-appropriate educational benchmarks from pre-K to grade 12. Our family services workers don't have the training or background in education to conduct this type of educational assessment. Curriculum development and evaluation is really an extremely specialized skill set and it is outside of FSD's professional scope. In conclusion, we would wholeheartedly support AOE in having an oversized or enforced alarm to be able to assess the quality of home school programs as well as to address educational neglect. We would also be in support of AOE revisiting their statute to address any unintended consequences that may have come from the home study rule change. And we also really would welcome increased partnerships between DCF, AOE and DMH and the mental health-designated agencies regarding school absenteeism from children's medical. Thank you for this, people. And I want to apologize for making you both wait so long. I know you're both busy and it's just that time of year, but I do apologize for that. I have no many questions or comments. Yes, Lisa, are we going to start? Yeah, a couple of questions. First, two about home schooling specific, then two about your AP agencies. Yeah, that's right, two plus two. Right, so in the concept of educational neglect, how would that be initiated? Or has it ever been initiated? Yeah, DFC and your DCF, or Family Services Division. In terms of school days? Yeah, yeah, have there ever been any? I can think of a recent one where it had come up, but since there was an approved home study program, we were not able to open the case. But Nancy, can you think of some where we have initiated and opened the case? Not when the, what we do is we confirm with agency of education that the family is enrolled in an accredited homeschooling program. And once we've heard that, then we don't go forward with any kind of assessment. So is it safe to assume they found the complaints that are all in here or were related to homeschooling? That's correct. Those all have to do with absenteeism from schools. And then specific to the Family Services Division. If you were a minor, how complicated is it to raise your hand and say, there's an abusive scenario in my family? How complicated is it? You know, I think that a lot of times we've been, we talked to kids about the trusted adult. So if they are in a school, they can reach out to a counselor, they can reach out to a teacher. And also there is the hotline. So I don't think it's necessarily difficult. I think it's more of the child really internally being afraid of the consequences. So not necessarily the mechanism to get to us. I think it's those outside concerns and glories that might keep the child from making the call which they should be. But Nancy, what would you? Let me just add there's, there are other venues or vehicles, if you will, for a child to make that outcry, such as to a pediatrician, to a relative, to a neighbor. We often sometimes we'll get reports from the parent of a best friend. That's a vehicle for a child to sometimes ask for help. Certainly schools are one of our larger bodies of mandated reporters, but those other community members and in the medical field. And the law enforcement also. Okay, good. And then given these statistics on like how many complaints there are in a year, how many accusations of abuse are, you know, in a year? Generally speaking, on the top of my head, I think it's about 24,000 was last week. I would have to, I can call it up easily. And we accepted over 4,000 interventions. 24,000 calls come to get to the top. Come into the top. Let me double check that I do not have a head for no first time when it's to social work. But 4,000 interventions per year. We're gonna double check it. Yeah. Yeah. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, Senator, Senator, she please have. Thank you for the testimony. I think, I mean, I would agree that, you know, that testee shouldn't be the, you know, the part of DCF that's evaluating home study programs. But I think my main concern or question is more so about the interagency collaboration when something like this comes in. Because I know that there can be situations where educational neglect is happening. Maybe not as defined here, but, you know, kid who's enrolled in a home school program, but is just not getting home school. But then there's also a parallel complaint of they're also not, they don't have access to food or they're being physically abused. And so when that, you know, just let's say I just dropped family member calls DCF first and, you know, they just lay all this out on the table. Aside from just confirming, aside from confirming with AOE that they are indeed in the home school program, is there any more like information sharing or I guess teamwork to figure out how or if this could be helped? We can go on to our, so I think I heard, I think I heard looks to the question and by the way, it's 19,725 reports of 2022. So I don't have the 20, 23 data yet. Intervention number? Intervention number 4,526 child safety interventions. You're welcome. So when you're assessing whether or not to accept a report of neglect and you're talking about lack of food in the home or I forget some of the other things that you said. Physical abuse. Okay, so there's different acceptance criteria for neglect versus physical abuse. So with neglect, we would want to know, we would want to hear a little bit about like, say evidence, because we don't need evidence at the point of reported acceptance, but how does the reporter know that the children are not receiving adequate nutrition? Have we received any reports from the pediatrician? Has there been a loss of weight? Is there a health condition stemming from the lack of appropriate nutrition? Or has the reporter been in the home and not seen, has seen like no food for your send-in list type? We would want to hear some information in that regard regarding lack of adequate nutrition. With physical injury, we would be looking for observation of injury itself or a disclosure from a child that they have received an injury. An injury or bruise is not necessarily needed for acceptance. However, like if the child is reporting that they're being, they're gonna speak what makes this a child abuse or talking about. So if a child is reporting that they're being hit with a belt or something like that on their bare skin, especially a younger child under the age of six, that's the kind of, we would be looking for specific information. It's really hard. Sometimes we do receive information that may be too ambiguous to accept. It just doesn't rise to the level such as I'm worried that they're not getting nutritional food from a family member. That wouldn't necessarily be enough to open a child safety intervention. We'd be looking for that specific detail. Well, now I would add though, the family service workers that work the hotline are very skilled and they do ask questions that isn't give and take. But after a certain point, if there's nothing additional specific, then we wouldn't be able to accept the report. But depending upon what evidence or what information is provided, then we may move to the next steps. Yes, yes. That's helpful. Thanks. Thank you very much for your testimony. Getting back to education and the purview of homeschooling and so on. Did I hear you say or am I hearing you say that it might be beneficial or helpful to remove the educational neglect from 33VSA-5106 or am I making that up? Or is it somewhere in between? I don't know what you're saying. We haven't, no, we didn't say that explicitly. No. Yeah, but it seems as though, I don't know, there's some discomfort or tension. I think when, you know, speaking back during COVID, during lockdown time, and that's a time when I can really recall our workforce really struggling to maintain the reports of education and neglect and sort of like, how do we approach that slend? You know, the whole, seems like the whole world is really struggling to try to figure out how to educate kids during lockdown. You know, when we are, when our folks are, when our district offices are understaffed and they have an educational neglect assessment, what they're really looking to do is like I said before, just like really partner with the school to address those barriers. But they're very different than child abuse and neglect investigations. Yeah, I guess that's why I'm asking the question is I just wonder if it's something that would be better housed with AOE, for example, and folks working into education. And it's just a thought that I'm having as we're going through this. I mean, I think it is a better fit for sure. Right. Thank you. Any other questions? Your concluding thoughts are really helpful. Again, full thought of the supporting AOE, having what they say for enforcement arms, vehicle sets, supporting AOE revisiting their statute to address any unintended consequences, certainly what we're concerned that last year in the move, in the digging steps, streamline and make things easier, there may have been some unintended consequences and we want to try to, if we can fix those in our missing hands education field this year. And then the welcome to partnership between all of you, AOA, AOE and DMH, that Senator Sheen's quite in comment about how much energy is breaking down some of these silos, these kinds of situations. And I do think that that's important because I mean, we're all here trying to help kids and if the connection between particularly mental health and absenteeism, that's something that we can get involved in, you can upstream so that the children don't end up having some kind of finding where they need to be, you know, PCF has to be involved so much the better if you keep the families supportive and intact. Thank you. If I could just seek one more point to your question about removing from 51 or 53, I think it's really important for folks to understand that what gives the division, the authority and any teeth, if you will, in that chapter are chance proceedings. And to write it off the day that brings something to the attention of the court as a response to a child not attending school, can sometimes feel like a really heavy-handed instrument for that problem. And that's why we continue to sort of ask is this really the right tool for the job? Is child protection, the child protection agency the best agency to address absenteeism and the chronic absenteeism? Yeah, I just was going to follow up. I really appreciate you bringing up and your good thoughts like that what is the role of A or B in oversight and enforcement? Because I think this is a question that we ask ourselves a lot, so I appreciate you bringing it up. I think it's a really important question too. Frankly, I don't think in my years in this building we've given really enough attention to the homeschooling, not issue, but in general, talk about homeschooling, what it looks like, what we're doing, what the expectations are. It comes up here and there, but you really have to jump in as much as I would like to. Anything else? Thanks a million, we may have you back in as we kind of find some language probably during town meeting, we're working with folks to better understand what steps we might take to rectify the problem that may have been created last year. Well, thank you all. Thank you. Thank you, you're great to see you again. Yeah, good to see you, we've met also. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, okay, I can understand. Not very memorable, but I hear that all the time. Out of the stress. Thanks, everybody. So tomorrow, I see this revised. We revised Thanksgiving schedule. We'll then go back to reading on the floor, very wrong, hopefully not. Beth will come in at 1.30 to talk through 1.91. Then we're gonna do the walkthrough in new draft of 220 libraries, which I think we're almost there. Attorney General's coming in to talk 1.20, S1.20. She'd like to talk about Senator Sheensfield, S167, Stanius and Memes, and all these are pretty quick. Beth will do the walkthrough and brought up on S204 and S303, hopefully we'll be able to combine those puppies, 284, and then literacy in independent schools and 430. Which of those, if any, are you proposing or going to the library? So I think possibly if we're good with it, I think new advancement grants. I think technology, we just need to walk through again and have a conversation. I think we will have a vote about combining 204 and 303, which I don't see as controversial. And that's it. And then the next day, I'd love to be able to vote that new version of 204, which will have 303 in it on Friday. And possibly we will also part with, if we haven't parted with 191, we'll part with that as well as libraries and technology. So, and then when we come back, Ms. Laney is at CTE and S1.20, so.