 Welcome, this is the Education Committee in the Vermont House of Representatives. Thursday, April 7th, 2022, we are continuing our conversation on S287 and that relating to improving student equity by adjusting the school funding formula and providing educational quality and funding oversight. And we're delighted to have the Education Commission of the States join us today to help us put in perspective Vermont and the country and provide an opportunity for committee members as well to ask other people. So with that, I would like to welcome start first with Joel Moore. So for the record, can you introduce yourselves? Thank you, Chair Webber. For the record, my name is Joel Moore with Education Commission of the States. It's great to be here with you this morning. We really appreciate the invitation. It's been, I mean, with COVID, I'd say it's hard not to be in there with person, but it's opened up these new opportunities and allow us to be here and respond a little more nimbly to those questions. And thanks for having us here to talk about the S287. Chris and I worked a little bit with the task force last fall and then watched some of the other testimony this week to get a little bit of perspective. But like I said, my name is Joel Moore. I'm part of the state relations team and the Education Commission of the States. If you're not familiar with us, we are a national nonpartisan education policy center created in law in all 50 state statutes with the purpose of helping education policy leaders from around the country and across the preschool to workforce spectrum learn from one another. So we work with governor's offices, departments of that, boards of education and higher education and legislatures to learn more about the national perspective because we know that informed policymakers are gonna create better education policy for their students. So again, we're nonpartisan and don't advocate for any specific policy. We can't tell you what's right for the folks of Vermont. You all know Vermont the best and its context, but we can't tell you what the other four United States are doing and what that looks like for them. So with that in mind, I will turn things over to Chris Duncombe, who's a senior policy analyst with our team who specializes in school finance to share a little bit about resources and answer some of the specific questions that the committee shared with us ahead of this meeting. So we will, with that Chris. Thank you, Joel. Thank you, Chairwoman Webb, members of the committee for having me here today. I've been invited to present on English learner funding policies that exist around the country. So I'm gonna provide an overview of some research that we've recently updated just at the October of last year and then particularly hone in on a few examples of states that have done tiered funding structures based on English proficiency and then invite questions and a broader discussion. Hopefully you all have the PowerPoint slides available to be viewed or a handout and might assist you as I'm kind of going through and laying out a few of this, these pieces of information. And we have two documents from you. It looks like you're talking about the one that's called English learner funding models. Yeah, I'm largely gonna be going through the PowerPoint slides. Do you have that slide deck? I have a slide deck that's titled English learner funding models. Yes, that is the one. Okay, great, thank you. Great. So one of the products that we produce at Education Commission of the states are 50 state comparisons. And this is where researchers at ECS go through state statute, administrative code, state budgets, education agency, policy documents, and we create a 50 state summary on a particular issue. We updated our 50 state comparison in 2012 finance recently, and it covers a variety of topics from the funding model that states operate, how they account students for funding purposes, and what that base funding amount for students for those states that have a base foundation model. And we also look at the funding streams for individual students and districts, such as special education students, EL students, gifted and talented, and districts that are in sparse rural areas. So that resource is available. There's a link at the end of that PowerPoint slide if you have it electronically. Not happy to provide that so that you can look through and see what other states have done for each one of these different categories. For English learner policies, we, based on this review, found the most common approach that states use is that they use a weighted funding model. This can either be a single flat weight or having multiple weights that are provided. And that's Vermont is currently one of 24 states in DC that has a flat weight. The weights range pretty dramatically for those states that do take this approach from about 2.5% in Utah, all the way to 100%, which is double the funding in Maryland. The average that we see is around 36%, median 25%. So both of those percentages are above what's currently in statute of the 20%, although S287 would actually give Vermont when it's fully phased in. I know that there's a transition period fully phased in the largest weight in the country. Another 11 states, which are orange on that map, if you have the PowerPoint slides, have multiple weights. Again, there's a large range of 5% for the lowest EL category in Texas to 200% for an EL category in New York. That category combines a bunch of different types of students, including economically disadvantaged students but includes EL students. On how these multiple weights are determined, states have different weights. Could you just, I have a little trouble following where we are on your PowerPoint. Could you just identify what the title of the page is? On the, I was referring to the map that's single on multiple weights. And that's where a map where you should see purple or orange states. Okay, perfect. Thank you. And just as a note, I know I'd given you a range of weights. The weights, and I'm sure all of you are very familiar with this. So just one portion of what equals the total funding amount that students receive, the base funding amount is also a central component. And that's also included on our 50 state comparison for the states that have a base amount. So I was going to transition to the next slide that says multiple weights. I do have a question. Can you just go back? I want to make sure, I know we've taken testimony on this before, but so Vermont is alone in having a single weight cover all of the capacity needed to fund ELL. Every other state that uses a weight has also a foundation base amount. Vermont is unique in that the other states that have a weighted funding approach you have a student based foundation. So yes, there is a base amount that is multiplied by that weight. And Vermont is unique in your funding structure where that weighted funding amount does not get multiplied by a base amount because the funding amount is determined locally by the locally approved budgets. Thank you. So the weight alone is carrying the weight. Yes. And it also has a different interaction in states with a base foundation amount. That weight is increasing the funding that is provided by the state and local governments for ELL students in Vermont because the weight is on after the budgets are approved and determining the tax rates is more on the side of who pays. So it has a little different interaction. And I'm sorry, I have one more question. In the other states is the EL weight applied to a base foundation amount for the average unweighted student. So say you get 10,000 per student and then you apply the EL weight for every ELL student you have or is there a base amount for an EL student that the weight get applies that the weight is applied to? Did that make sense? The EL weight is typically applied to the base amount although there may be several base amounts. Some states have base amounts for different grade levels. So that EL weight is being applied to a base amount whether the state has multiple or just one. Okay, so your average non-weighted kiddo costs 10,000. That's your base amount. And the EL weight is applied to that. Yeah, and sometimes the mechanics sometimes are differ from state to state a bit depending on if the state local cost share where that fits in. So I can't say that there's just uniform across the map, but that's the basic approach. Okay, thank you. Great, so I'm gonna move on to the multiple weight slide. As I mentioned, some states have multiple weights and this is most often based upon a measure of English proficiency off of statewide proficiency assessment. Couple examples that I can provide. Iowa uses the English language proficiency assessment for the 21st century or ELPA 21. And based upon how students do on that test they're placed into either an intensive student category or an intermediate slash progressing student category. The weights for each of those categories is 26% for the intensive, 21% for the intermediate or progressing. So there isn't huge variation between those two weights. And another example is North Dakota and they use WIDA's consortium access place and test which I believe Vermont also participates in and they have three weight categories based upon their scores on those WIDA assessments of 40%, 28% and 7%. Sorry, 40, 28 and 7%. And you said that was based on what? Was that based on? On the WIDA access placement exam and how they score on that exam. What state was that that does the three? North Dakota. North Dakota, thank you. I'm happy to provide a memo with that list all those states with multiple weights and all of their multiple weight categories, if that's helpful. That would be thanks. Great. States also differentiate by concentration of Yale students, California as an example of this. They have a higher weight for districts that have more than 55% of their students that are Yale. So that would be a very different than the school districts in Vermont where that do not approach that threshold but they use the 55% threshold and there's an additional weight for students above that threshold within those districts. States also differentiate by grade or program. Texas is an example where they have a higher weight for students that are participating in their dual language immersion program. Their regular Yale weight is 10% and then in this program is 15%. I will move on to the next slide if unless there are additional questions. That's good. I'm sorry, I do have a question. The number of Yale students in Maine, is that again, the more students the higher the weight or is it something like what we're contemplating here where we're adding extra support for districts that have fewer students? I believe it is similar to your approach. I unfortunately, let me pull up. And I think that you and Maine would be the only ones that I have seen that have that approach. Where it is for districts, I guess that primary economies of scale perspective that have limited number of English learner students would receive more funding. The percent of James, I'm going to just, you can just go ahead and ask questions if you want. I recognize that you just go ahead and go forward as you are leading this. So I can answer that question. The percentage of James, I'm happy to answer that question. So the weight is 70% for school admin units with 15 or fewer Yale students. 50% for admin units with 16 to 250 Yale students. So again, going similar direction to the way your categorical program that's being proposed is designed. And it actually goes back up, so it's kind of a curve. A weight of 52.5% for admin units above that amount. And I know I just gave you a lot of numbers. So I'm again, I'm happy to provide that and follow up if it's easier than me just saying, reading this amount to you. Thank you. That'd be great to send that along, my typing. I ran out of space to type. Moving. All right, so going on to the resource based allocation and I'm not going to go into too much detail because I don't think this is an approach that you are currently considering, but I did want to provide some background on this. Some states, rather than allocating a dollar amount will designate certain staff positions for Yale students. Most often this are for instructor positions, but it can also be support positions. There are six states, Illinois, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming that take this approach. Among those states going on to the next slide. As I mentioned, instructional positions is the most common approach. Virginia is an example. They require one full-time instructional position for every 50 students. Tennessee has a ratio of one to 20. So there is variation similarly in the staffing ratios for these positions. And other states set standards for teaching assistants, translators and intervention supports. This means that these states have developed a formula that says we will reimburse the cost of so many instructional positions or whatever the staffing is. Similar, yeah. They'll have in statute staffing standards that require districts to staff positions at these levels and then their funding formula will allocate funds to cover the state portion of those positions. Thank you. Keep moving. All right, going to categorical grants. There are five states that provide all funding solely through a categorical grant program. That's Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana and West Virginia. And two states, Colorado and Connecticut that have a hybrid approach where they have both a categorical grant and a flat student weight in the formula. So this is similar to S287 that you're currently considering. These as clarification for those that are less familiar with categorical grants. These are funding streams that exist outside of the primary funding model and are oftentimes allocated as a specific program through a line item in the appropriation bill. There is a lot of variation in the structure of the categorical grants. For example, Delaware has created an opportunity fund that combines both English learners and students from low income backgrounds. They list out several expense categories that the funds can be used for but it also includes a really broad base category. Expenditure is necessary to provide additional services for EL students and students living in low income families. So it really provides broad discretion for the districts to allocate these resources. But local districts are required to submit an expenditure plan to the State Department of Education to receive those funds. So there is some fiscal accountability standards but there is a lot of flexibility to the districts in the use of those funds. Another example is Indiana. And Indiana school districts actually have to apply to receive the grant funds. They aren't just awarded and they're awarded on a competitive basis and capped at a maximum of $300 per EL student. So that would be less than the proposed categorical grant program here in Vermont. Another note that I saw is going through the categorical programs, a lot of states will cap the number of eligible years for students in a categorical program, five years being the most common. I will move on. I'm sorry. What's the five years based on? I wonder if we had a question earlier from Representative Williams about how long it typically takes students to progress from no proficiency to proficient is five years a magic number on the letter? So I wish I have not had a chance to review the literature to know if five years is the expected time that it should be to achieve English proficiency. So I think that is a great question. This is just, it seems to be the common trend among states that have these grant programs. But UCS does have another 50 state comparison that we link at the end of this presentation on English learner policies generally. And we have the policies that state have for English learners being reclassified to no longer be an English learner. So we have that for all 50 states as well. Thank you. On the next slide, we list out the two states that have a hybrid approach, Colorado and Connecticut. While the weights are still a primary vehicle of delivering funding for English learner students, the size of their grant programs in the weights vary quite a bit. Colorado's grant program is 25.3 million or was before. I think the latest budget is increasing that. But when we did this review, that was the amount which I estimate based on EL enrollment to be about $250 a student. And they have a smaller weight of 8% in the formula. In contrast, Connecticut has a very small grant program of just 1.9 million, which has to make to be about $50 per year student and a much larger weight in their formula of 25%. Again, the proposed weights when they're phased in and the categorical grant program proposed in Vermont would be larger than both of those amounts. So the next slide, I just have weights and grants vary in size. And I'm just trying to reillustrate a point that I've raised kind of throughout this presentation that states are kind of all over the map in terms of their EL weights that are used. And this occurs for a variety of reasons. It can be because of the states have different academic outcome objectives. It can be about because of the different demographics in the state. And it can also because states face different financial constraints. And so that is why a lot of states like Vermont have gone the direction of commissioning studies, which can either be cost studies like what Dr. Colby did or professional judgment panels like a lot of the work that APA consulting. A few studies that I wanted to highlight in other states that might be helpful given the interest in potentially tiered funding, Michigan commissioned an APA consulting study in 2018 where they recommended weights based on the WIDA access score, which I believe is the ELL placement test that you use in Vermont. So I can provide that link. And Maryland's Kerouan Commission also did a cost estimates for doing their weight of the 100%, which based upon their review came out to about 18,600, which is a little below the 24,000, although you guys are looking at different weights that you had discussed for your formula. In terms of ECS resources, there's the 50 state comparison on K-12 funding and a 50 state comparison on English learner policies. I mentioned that it has the reclassification process in that 50 state on ELL policies, but also has a lot of other information including certification requirements for instructors and how states define and identify ELL students because that differs from state to state as well. In addition to that, we have a memo that summarizes a lot of the information that I've shared. I will provide the additional resources that we discussed on main. And there's also a table at the end of that document that has all the funding amounts for all 50 states that may also be a good point of reference. So with that, I'm happy to open it up to questions and discuss further. One quick question, and then I'm gonna turn it over to Representative James. I'm looking at the language, and I know when I started teaching it was ESL, then it became EL, and I'm now seeing ELL and down EL. Can you help us a little bit? What's the term that's being used now in the vernacular? And what's the federal naming? What's the federal law for the name? I'm not sure. In terms of federal naming, it might still be ELL. I'll have to double check on that. There is, I wouldn't say a agreed upon term. There's a lot of different terms that are used. ELL and ELL seem to be the most common right now, but there are also other groups and organizations that have been looking at more asset-based approaches. I know Emergent Bilingual is another one that has been used. I believe there's a few other terms that are being thrown around. I don't know if there's a consensus-based term, but there are some options. Okay, thank you. Representative James, I'm gonna turn this over to you. Hey, sure, I'll toss out my last question, and then it looks like Phukes has some questions around these people. Just curious, I know you can't comment on policy, but curious if you can provide any frameworks that would help us take a look at the cutoff amounts and, or the cutoff numbers and the grant amounts that are set up in S287 right now, which I'm not looking at the bill, but it's something along the lines. If you have zeroed so many students, you get 25,000 and something to 25, you get 50. And we're just trying to figure out if those are the right cutoff amounts and if those are the right grant amounts. Yeah, and it depends on somewhat of what you're trying to achieve. Vermont is really unique in that there's one, not a large EL population, and then it too, it's concentrated in just 10 or so of the districts there. So I'm assuming that that was designed to round to provide categorical grant funds to those districts that have just a few students and may not have kind of economies of scale to provide larger resources to students. That's exactly right. And so that approach makes sense, but I would note that that would exclude the other districts entirely. While they would be receiving the larger weight that would go through the formula, they wouldn't be receiving the categorical grant funds. So they're possible consideration around having some funds available to those districts, but that really depends on what your policy goals are. The policy goal was everybody will receive the weight. So the weight is across the state. I believe that statistically the conclusion here is that the weight in and of itself won't deliver sufficient taxing capacity to districts that have a very small number of ELL students, even just to hire like a part-time teacher. So we're trying to bring those districts that have fewer numbers of ELL students up to some sort of floor, make sure they can hire an instructor and provide the services they need. So it would be, they would have the weight plus this additional little boost. That makes sense. And I think that that would be a very state specific cutoff based upon the demographics in the state if I were to design it. So I think it kind of makes sense to have that cater that to what you did in Vermont, but I can also provide the cutoffs that Maine did since they also had a similar approach. That'd be great. Representative Austin. Yes, thank you. I'm just wondering, I know this is a funding discussion, but I always think of funding, hopefully resulting in proficiency outcomes. With all these models, is there anyone that kind of stands out as this works in terms of increased proficiency and targeted, you know, acquisition of English language? I haven't seen a connection between the model and improved outcomes that it's more of the amount and improved outcomes. And I think that is why states have gone the direction of cost studies like you have done with Dr. Colby to try to figure out what that right amount is to achieve the desired outcomes for the state. So I know that there's a lot of different approaches out there and sometimes it's more about designing it around how your formula is structured and what the demographics are in your state because I think any of these models could achieve desirable outcomes if they're delivering the appropriate number of resources to the students. Thank you. Representative Conner. Yeah, thanks for that. Just finding the, it'd be great if you could just say, yeah, this is the way it works. This is the best way to do it. We're very unhappy that you can't tell us that. But on that note, I'm somewhat intrigued by the resource-based allocation funding model because it really says money for instruction. And could you talk about perhaps what some of the challenges are with the resource-based allocation design? Yeah, the challenge is local flexibility. So if there are certain programmatic services that you want to provide that aren't people, the resources to do that may be limited. And so that is one of the reasons why there's been a trend towards student-based foundation models. But what the advantage, as you point out, is that it is guaranteeing a certain number of positions or people that are there to work with students. So it really is a trade-off and you can try to achieve that with your existing model through what is included in the categorical proposal here in S287. Sorry, I have to keep looking over at the number to make sure I have it right, is to have some reporting requirements to see how districts are using these funds to make sure that they're using it for desired purposes like instructors. Yeah, well, I guess because our funding system is so different in not using a foundation formula, that even if there aren't, that we can always make up for the local resources flexibility because local districts make their own spending decisions. That's true. Yeah, that's very interesting though, thank you. Good questions. Any of you have more? I think I'll just tell folks, if you look at some of the sites that they have given us, it's really quite fascinating. I've definitely been looking at the 50 state comparison on how is an English language learner defined, which is one of the things that we're doing in this bill and it's interesting to see that we basically just tie it to the federal law, whereas other states actually have different definitions. Are those definitions that tend, well, they can't be more limiting than what the federal definition is, but they are more expanding definitions. That's correct. Okay, I'm looking, I'm not seeing any other questions at this point. Probably what usually happens with this committee is we will come up with those questions after you've left. I can't mind us being able to reach out again once we've had a chance to mull over this information. It would be very helpful. Thank you for all the healing members for your interest and engagement, and definitely happy to follow up with any questions that occur and we'll provide those additional resources. Okay, thank you so much. Okay. Thank you all, it was great to see you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, just one quickie. Oh, wait, are you still there? Yes, yeah. This is what we do, yeah. Yes, make sure that you guys include this on your little running memo of all of the work and support that you've provided to the state of Vermont for our ongoing efforts to stop being scoff laws here. Yeah. Well, no, please. Annual fees. Keep tabs. Okay. Wonderful to work with you. We'll talk to you soon. I see. Okay. That is it for now. We've got the honor of coming in at one o'clock. I know that we have some time on Friday that says mark up and vote on this bill. I'm going to say that I personally, I'm not ready to vote on anything. So we will not be voting on this bill. But I would like to see if we can bring back Amanda, if we give this a chance that we can bring back Amanda and you're already here. Bring back Ann and Brad either at that time or if there's any time later today. We actually have some time. Let's send them some, let's send Brad the questions. Yes. Will you, will you do that? Yes. That sounds great. With Peter, with Rob Conlon. We will put our heads together. Yeah, I'm not getting where this question was. Okay. I'm on it. If Laura is short-ish tomorrow, we anticipate that that might be moved to a late morning. Yes. Or will it hold till one? Yes. Okay. We should definitely plan on that. Also seeing if we can get anything on PCBs on our bill, which is a good thing. I am following up with my question on what's happening in New Hampshire. There actually is a bill that really is moving forward. I've sent that bill. I believe it's out of the Education Committee and I'm following up with... This is the age 22 issue. This is the age 22 issue. So if New Hampshire takes care of it, then it's hunky-dory. I don't think I've used the hunky to term hunky-dory in about 15 years. I've just used it. I've heard you say that before. Okay. Anything else that we need to discuss just looking at our list? Go ahead. Well, really, just back on 287 and the EL discussion. And we've got a timing issue. So are there sort of parameters that are, you know, Garfield, we should keep in mind as to not letting our discussion go too far afield because we certainly could revamp the entire EL funding system despite the work that the Senate already did. I just, I'm concerned that we may head in that direction. I just wonder if we should say we're gonna sort of stick with the model of the hybrid thing or not. I just throw it out there as a point of debate. I know that there's an awful lot of interest in getting deeper and deeper into ELL and understanding and it's fascinating. And we're really at sort of the superficial level of this. However, we just need to figure out how it's relating to this bill in moving forward. I have a reflection on that. Yes. Maybe this is just me, but in my mind, I have great clarity around this, which is that we don't have, I don't think the time or the capacity to set aside the work of the task force, ask Dr. Colby to recalculate the weight, start looking at different models, you know. So in my mind, where the testimony is taking me anyway, is to two to three succinct sentences, if anything. So if we find this is interesting, in my mind where we're heading is whether we ask for a future report back on this to take a look at tiered funding or to take a look at the ELL weight. In my mind, it's like, what are the cutoff levels and the grant amounts? That might be something we could take her with if we can get an easy answer for the Catechol-Crolet portion. The concept of tiered weights is something that in my mind, all we're trying to figure out is whether that's something that we build into the bill as a report back at X-State. Yes. That's where I'm going with this. We're not doing this this week. We're not doing it this year. No, we're not doing it this year. And I don't want to slow down this bill. You know, in my mind, we all talk about must pass bills. For me, this is a must pass bill. And so that's where I'm heading is. I was appreciating the language that the agency has sent over. The language always felt a little bit shaky to me and I'm appreciating that we're getting some better definitions about who we're talking about. Much more specific. Yeah. So after we speak with Brad, I would be inclined to add those to our bill, those recommendations to our bill. The representative. Yeah, I'm just wondering about resources. You know, I just have no idea whatever we pass. I mean, are there resources out there to accomplish? You know, what we want to accomplish. How many ELL teachers are we looking at staffing or is everybody all set? Probably I'm sure it's a concern. I'm sure it's going to be a concern going forward. I'm not sure we can address that in this bill. Right. I just, I don't want to address it. I just want to know it. I think it's a very good question. I think it's something we don't have an answer to. And it's certainly something that we're, I think we're all thinking about in terms of all the staffing that we're dealing with. But the AOE would not, right? There wouldn't know how many ELL teachers we have now and how many are possible. Can I ask Secretary Finch that question? There was some question about licensing. I think they would, can I be able to tell us how many are like licensed or certified now and what's coming? I'm not going to. I hear 40% of teachers are on the, what provision right now. So I just, you know, but I think that's general ed teachers. I'm not sure that the ELL teachers. I didn't know of like, anyway. I think that that is an issue going forward. I'm quite sure we're not going to be able to address that issue within the next few days in this bill. I think that is a conversation, but I think maybe not in this bill. It's just a bigger policy piece around workforce development and teacher workforce development and their, you know, organizations. NEA is certainly working on that, but that's much beyond the scope of this session. Yeah, no, I know, I know for this, it's just, you know, we're looking at programs that are, the numbers are going to increase, the number of students, the ELL students. They're coming with Afghanistan and probably Ukraine. They speak English. I don't think they're the ones that need as much as the Somali. They're going to have to still be a part of the program. Yeah, they'll have to be evaluated. And it's, we're correcting that so that we're defining who they are based on federal definitions. So I guess I'm curious to know, what are we looking for from Brad James? I was a little unclear as to the specifics. I forgot what the question was. I'm writing to him right now. What I wanted to ask him was just to remind us all of what the 2.49 weight represents. So we had some questions about whether that encapsulates the range of cost differentials across the state from high concentration districts to a district with one and from students with limited proficiency to students who are almost proficient. So just to remind us all of what that 2.49 weight captures so that we can have a more informed discussion about whether we even need tiers. Maybe the weight itself, already in some ways, I extended the tiers. If I remember. My question for Brad. From Tammy Colby that they did look at the one range but you were on the task force. It's my, that's my recollection too. And that's what I think Brad's going to come into tell us. And if Tammy were around, we could have her come in and tell us that. But so, you know, if the 2.49 weight already captures what we're trying to accomplish with the tiered approach and we're wasting our time talking about a tiered approach. That was my, that's my primary question. And then also we had thought Brad might, Brad or someone might shed a little bit of light on the cutoff levels in the grand amount, especially with there's that gap. We cut off at 25, but federal funds don't kick in till 50. So what are we doing with that? Y6 by 25. Those were my Brad James questions. Yeah, I'm concerned like that one that you just mentioned is a policy question he may not be able to answer by, but maybe he's got the, a lot of those stuff that Tammy Colby calculated. So I hope he'll be able to answer them. But I don't think Tammy, I don't think Tammy has to do with, maybe we just need to hear more from Senate Ed, but you know, I don't think Tammy calculated the categorical aid amounts either. I think that's a Senate Ed. I didn't mean to come up with finance actually. Or finance. So, you know, maybe we should need to ask Ruth, but those are the two questions in my mind outstanding on ELL. And I can copy Ruth on this if you want, Steve. I was gonna bring my outstanding policy question. Again, I might just need more information from the Senate or to go back to the report, but is around our requirements for general classroom teachers in their professional development or on requirements for understanding English language learners? Because to the bigger workforce issue, I think that's actually our biggest leverage point. There's, there will be specified EL teachers, but it's going to be incumbent on the general education, general classroom teachers to be able to teach to all students better and to teach to a growing English language population. And we don't currently have anything in statute or regulation. I'm looking at the state comparison. It's a mishmash, quite a few states do. Many of our higher ed programs are developing more and more along those lines. I don't know that we're at a place to put it in here as a requirement now, but if we aren't making that at some point part of the teacher licensure process, the way we do with at least some exposure to special education, we're gonna miss out on, I think, instructionally a huge leverage point here. So I don't know where, if we need to hear from the standard support on that or I need to go, I gotta go back and look at it. All of these things that we're discussing are really kind of big and it doesn't seem like there does need to be specific language dealing with EL in a report back form or something that will guide. And maybe that's in the report back. We kind of put this with your into action, see how it works, but then I think the tier thing is probably very important to look at it. Yep, again, and I think the requirements of general, the training for and requirements of general education teachers is also has to be a part of this. I did see helium has a minor program, you could minor. Well, it sounds like, sounds like that would be part of the, that foundational work. I mean, this might all be captured in the language too, that Secretary French comes back with. Maybe. St. Mike says one of the most outstanding programs in the country. Oh, yeah. I'm teaching teachers of English language that should learn the tassel. There might be interesting have someone come in. I don't know. Yes, possible. Some of their students, some teachers being some of their students at that desk. It's hard because we are, we are throwing up being weighted this. Doing so, somewhat without, you know, parameters of how that weight is to be used if we leave all of those decisions up to the local districts. Just to clarify that, that while the Senate passed it as a weight, there is conversation about looking at it as the cost equity model. I think there's some misunderstanding what that is. It's just basically the same thing with those numbers as opposed to weight. Okay. Right here. We'll be back at one o'clock.