 Okay, thank you Peggy. So welcome everybody. Senate Education and we are at Thursday, April 23rd 2020 and we have a relatively short agenda today. As I told you last time, the House Education Committee was not ready to move forward with the default budget language so we have tabled that perhaps indefinitely but maybe not. But the Act 173 language they seemed fine with with a couple of minor tweaks which I believe Jim has incorporated into the new draft. So why don't we start with a walk through from Jim and that language is up on the committee website and if you want to go ahead and pull it up it's draft 4.1. Well I think we should start with the timeline. Okay, sounds good. So that's in the same spot if you want to go there. Okay, whenever you're ready Jim. Okay, so for the record Jim Daimler at the console, we're walking through draft 7 of this timeline, which you've seen many times before. If we go down to the boxes, two thirds down, we're sure it's the fiscal years. Just to remind the committee that originally the census grant was going to go into effect in fiscal year 21. That's the third box in. And then last year you delayed that start to fiscal year 22 and now you're delaying it to fiscal year 23. So the first year of the grant will be fiscal year 23 under this bill. And that actually is not technically a census grant. That is a grant that's based on the amount that the school districts have historically received and especially at a reimbursement. So that first year, we're taking the average of three years worth of reimbursement, fiscal years 18, 19 and 20. We're adding an affair to it and that would be the amount that each school district receives the first year. And just to remind the committee what they'll do with that is in that first year, they'll take that amount of money. I won't give examples, but they'll take that amount of money and they'll divide by their student count. And they'll come out to an amount per student. And that amount per student will be different for every school district in the state probably because the amount that got an reimbursement will differ by school district and the number of students will differ by school district. So the amount per student will be very different in that first year. And Jim, just to clarify, so this is ADM not weighted pupils. It's actual bodies. Actual bodies, yeah. Yeah, correct. Then if we flip over to the very end of the chart in fiscal year 27, we have a uniform base amount. And what that means is that all districts at that point will be using the same amount of money per student. And it starts in fiscal 27 and it goes forward and there's no inflator on that after it's set. And that's how it was from cost savings potentially in this act. So between fiscal 23 and fiscal 27, school districts are moving toward that uniform amount. So for example, if in fiscal 23, your student, per student number was let's say 2000 per student. And let's say that the uniform amount in fiscal 27 is 3000 per student, you will move up over three years to get to that uniform amount. And if you had the opposite set of facts, you move down to get to that uniform amount. Okay. So those are the transition years happening in fiscal 24, 25 and 26. Is that clear? I think it's very clear. The one thing I just wanted to ask about is you've also changed the date for the state board rulemaking. Correct. And that's just putting it out a year from where it was after what we did last year. Yeah, originally this date in Act 173 was November 1, 2019. Last year was changed to August 1, 2020. Now it's been changed to August 1, 2021. Okay, great. Questions on the timeline? One further, two further comments, I believe I could. Let's let Jim clarify and then we'll go to Debbie and then Andrew. Okay. Two further things I wanted to mention. One at the very bottom, the rules that apply to independent schools were to go into effect in fiscal 23 when Act 173 is passed. Now that's being moved to fiscal 24. So one of the New York stands on that too. And the one thing I wanted to mention as well is that the calculation of the uniform base amount, I realized going through this process, there's a problem with the inflator, how that number is inflated over time. So I fixed that in the draft we're about to go through and explain the fix. That uniform base amount in fiscal year 27, the very last box, it's the average of three fiscal years with the funding, 18, 19 and 20 plus an inflator. Okay. So the problem with that is that you have to know what the uniform base amount is at the beginning of fiscal year 24. You have to know that because you're starting to move toward it in fiscal year 24. So you won't know what the inflation rate is in fiscal year 24, 25 or 26. You won't know that information. So you can't really set the uniform base amount without knowing what the inflator is. So what I've done in this draft is I've taken the years that we do know what the inflation rate is. I think like fiscal year 21, 22, 23. And I've averaged the inflation rate for those three, those years and used it for the years we don't know what the inflation rate will be. Is that clear? Yeah. Okay. Why don't we move to the language? Oh, I'm sorry Debbie and then Andrew. Thanks. Yeah. So just looking at the box that says funding for AOE to provide assistance to supervised reunions and adopting best practices. Will that be extended into FY 22? Do we need to appropriate an additional amount of funds or is that kind of included in AOE's budget? Uh, while that has not been done in this draft, the technical assistance that was given by AOE has been frankly, I think, mindfully criticized in terms of what they've given. So you could fund more of it, but I think you want to be more specific as to what they have to do. Yeah. And I think that was supposed to represent a kind of ongoing cultural shift. And that's why there's no line. Jim hasn't connected it. It's just kind of supposed to be happening, but I think Jim's right. We've all had the sense that it's not happening. So I don't think we need to deal with it here, but we need to get when the COVID crisis is over and AOE goes back more or less to normal. We need some kind of firm or commitment from them and at that time it may involve more funding, but, you know, they're just not accomplishing what's supposed to underlie this whole effort. So let's put that question to the future when we pick up post-emergency. Andy, what was your question? My question is why the years for the average grant are, you know, three fiscal years before the first year of the grant, 18, 18, 20. Why aren't they, you know, 20, 21, 22? Well, we could move them forward, but then getting into an unusual period, right, with COVID. So the reimbursement rate spent be not normal anymore. And wherever years you use, they are being inflated. So the years you use is less important because they will be inflated pre-year after that to get to the point where it's used. Yeah, actually that was the same problem during Irene. All the spending exploded. We had infusions of federal cash and it made it hard to get to look before Irene and after Irene to figure out what was really going on. Okay, so let's go to the language now. So this is draft 4.1, Jim. 4.1, correct, yeah. And just walk us through and we'll stop you as we need to. Okay, so just go through the statement of purpose first. The bill proposes due to the COVID-19 state of emergency to delay the changes in special education funding from a reimbursement model to a census-based model from July 1, 2021 until July 1, 2022 and to delay the requirement that certain approved dependent schools and world students on IEP from July 1, 2022 until July 1, 2023. Okay, so section one, if you flip over to page two and you've seen this language numerous times before, we've done through this before. Some of this is technical changes from AOE. So the first change, I don't have lines on my page, my front is print lines out so I can't point you to a line. The first change on page two just clarifies that the three school years we're using for lunch or membership are for the most recent three years which data are available. That's the AOE change. Jim, just back to Andy's question. So the most recent three years for which data is available would, we do have data that's going to be available but it won't be reliable because of corona? Well, this is for the student count. Okay. You're on your student count. So this is the most recent student count three years worth an average of that. Okay. It's the same way you compute ADM. All right, sounds good. ADM, when you compute ADM as an average of two years, we use an average of three years here. Okay. And then coming down where it says, number of paragraph four, uniform based amount, let's go through that definition together, it says uniform based amount means, this is the amount that you're using, this is 27, means and not determined by dividing an amount equals to the average state appropriation for fiscal years 18, 19 and 20 for special education and then increase final player and then divide by lunch or membership. So you're basically taking a statewide, how much have you spent on special education? You're dividing it by statewide student count. Okay. But we're using the base years of 18, 19 and 20. So it has to be inflated because you have to get from there all the way to 27. So for the employer, for each official year, 21, 22 and 23, we'll know what the inflation rate is. We can use that inflation rate. And then for the years when we don't know what the inflation rate will be, which is fiscal year 24, 25 and 26, we use the average inflation factor for the years we do know, which is fiscal year 21, 22 and 30. Is that clear? Okay. Okay. Next page. Now we're going into those boxes on the chart we just went through. So page three at the top says for fiscal year 23, which is the first year of the census grant of the grant funding, the amount of the grant for SU will be the average amount received for fiscal years 18, 19 and 20, and then increased by the inflation factor. Okay. That's the first year of grant funding they'll get. Jim, if I could just ask, so we're into 2020 here. And is that including data from the current situation? No, that's fiscal year. So that's 1920. Okay. As opposed to 2021. If you use fiscal year 21, we'd be coming into this period. Okay. So we're trying to avoid that. Yeah, could move. Okay. That's that change. And then B says, and this isn't changed, but just to explain how it works. So you get the amount in year one, 2023. And then you, it says in B, the amount determined under A, the amount that you've got will be divided by the SU's long-term membership through your average of student count to determine the base amount of the census grant, which is the amount of the census grant calculated per student basis. So this is where you get every SU having a different calculation at this point. And then at the end, so now for fiscal 27 at the very end of this process, instead of fiscal years, the amount of the census grant for SU will be the uniform base amount multiplied by the SU's student count. Okay. Okay. And that doesn't, does not inflate. What that's done is it's not inflated. And then in between years for years 24, 25, and 26, the amount of the census grant for an SU should be determined by multiplying the SU's long-term membership by a base amount established under this subdivision. But with this language it's just moving them from fiscal year 23 to fiscal year 27 proportionally to get there. So either moving up or down to get to the uniform base amount that's used in fiscal years 27. Well, that gets somewhat confusing, I have to say. I am, I'm just struggling a little bit with so for instance on page four, we've gone from 2021 to 2023, 2025 to 2027, on lines five and six. So let's just read that language if we could. So at the top it says the base amounts for each Supervisory Union for fiscal years 24, 25, 26, which are these transitional years shall move gradually the SU's fiscal year 23 base amount to the fiscal year 27 uniform base amount by parading the change between the SU's fiscal year 23 base amount and the fiscal year 27 uniform base amount over the three fiscal year period. I get that, but why has it jumped by two years rather than one year? Oh, because we, because he moved out the start date by two years. Right. You mean because we delayed a year last year and we're delaying another year? Yeah. Okay. Everything forward by two years. Okay. I thought we were changing language where we had moved at one year last year. So now this year would there would only be a one year move. Because these changes should have been made last year. Right. Because the collapse of the miscellaneous. Yeah. I'm not sure exactly why, but I wasn't here for that part, but whoever helped with that did understand how this all worked. So we're making up now. Okay. And then so that's that's that section. Any questions on that? No, I don't see any. Okay. Okay. Next section. Are this just technical changes from the AOLM? Sorry, Ruth has a question. Oh, yeah. Can you guys hear me? Yeah. Okay. This may be just an editing question, but in that section that you just read online to, for example, shall move gradually the supervisory union fiscal year base amount to it shouldn't. Aren't there some words missing there? Isn't there a to missing or something? The phrasing is really awkward. I mean, we need our English professor to help us. It's actually right. I mean, I can see, yeah. It reads okay to me. Gradually move the supervisory unions fiscal year to a different uniform base amount appropriate to change. It's right. Okay. It just seems like it's missing words. I read it a couple of times. I think it's it's not the smoothest construction, but I think it's grammatical. Okay. I trust you to and of course, of course, you guys and AOE. So, okay. Okay. So section two are just changes from AOE. We've been through this before, but because we're on moving from a reimbursement to a grant system, they want to get rid of the word expenditures and costs. Those terms usually use more with reimbursement. So you're moving to the words funding basically for funds. Okay. So that's that's a change there. Section three on page five. This is the section again, changes by AOE, technical changes, I believe there's a 2% bucket that the circuit can use for unusual circumstances. And that 2% bucket under this language is now tied to the amount of the census grant. So it's tied to a different different source, if you will, because we're moving to census grant as opposed to reimbursement. And Jim, have we voted on that language before? On this language? Yeah. No. Okay. So this is new from AOE? Well, it's new. It came in last year, last year. I think you wrote it out last year because I think you moved this last year. Okay. That was my question was, okay. And what was it tied to before? I think it's here. So it's crossed out. So it's up to 2% of the funds appropriated for special education. So that would be the money to reimburse what had already been spent? Yeah. And now they're moving it to 2% of the census grant. Okay. Sounds good. Okay. Section four is, okay. So section four came up in house education. There's requests that the advisory group have a bit more life to it now that these days have been moved out. The advisory group is, under this language, it was going to cease to exist on June 3, 2022, that moved to June 30, 2023, one year. And then the next part about reimbursement, it is allowing them to have up to 12 meetings per year, as opposed to eight, because they ran out of meetings in the past. So that was going to be compensated for 12 meetings per year, and that will increase the appropriation from 5,300 approximately to 9,000. Yeah. This is going to add at least two weeks, if not a month, to the passage of this bill, because it's going to have to go through our appropriates, their appropriates, and they're working very slowly these days. This isn't super time sensitive, so I don't think it's really, you know, it's not a super emergency that it be changed now rather than a month from now, but just so we are expecting that delay. Does anybody have a problem with extending the life of the advisory panel? Okay. I think they've done very good work, you know, and on the rulemaking, they were very helpful. So I'm fine with it. It's a small amount of money. Okay. Keep going, Jim. Okay. So section five extends rulemaking. So last year you did, you changed two days last year. You changed, you pushed out the grant funding by one year, and you moved rulemaking by one year. This moves it by an additional year. So it's moving, you moved last year to August 1, 2020. Now it's being moved to August 1, 2021. Okay. And then section six, again, just moving these days forward by two years, you can see the two year changes here in section six. And the IDA references something that came from AOE, a technical change. Section seven, you may recall that 173 gave some leeway under the current state board rules to allow teachers to teach, students to struggle, more as a group rather than just students on IEP. That's been moved out to two by two years as well. So that relief will remain in place for two more years. Section eight is the requirement for, okay, so now we're moving away from the census grant into the approved independent school part 173. And so there was a requirement that the state board initiate rulemaking to, there's a concern about getting approval by independent schools for providing services for various categories of disabilities and how long that takes. So this language says, I'll be forward June 30, 2021, but moving by two years. The state board of education shall review its rules for approving independent schools in specific special education categories and initiate rulemaking to update its rules to simplify and expedite the approval process. That's been moved by two years. Okay, so Jim, this is, I'm just trying to clarify, this is new language. It's all the language except for the date change. I see, okay, so what I'm getting at is the independent school folks this is part of the agreement that we made at the end of the 173 bill writing process. Do you remember that Nicole Mace, Patty Comline representing their various people came up with a compromise, which we put into 173. So this keeps that in place, just changes the date. Yeah, and the concern with this address is the concern that if the approved independent schools are going to be required to take on special education students, it takes it takes too much time to get approved for that category of disability. Yeah, so they're trying to find a way to speed that up. Okay, okay. And then section nine is new language. Jim, John, Carol. Just one second. Let's just Debbie, go ahead. Yeah, so I was trying to understand the why it's gone from November 1st to June 30th. It really ties into the date in section nine, which we'll have to come to. It was a request by John Carroll. Okay. For that date, but then they come back to that just in one minute if I could. Okay. In section nine, there's a couple of things in regard to state board rules. Both of these are requested by John Carroll. First, they want John. I'm sorry. This was the section I was asking my question about. Okay. So I thought we were talking about section nine already. But what I'm wondering is this update to state board of education rules. Is that language that we have vetted through the stakeholders? Or is this something that's come straight from the state board? Straight from the state board. Okay. So we will need to have the stakeholder groups take a look at it to make sure that, or why don't you explain what it does and we'll see how. So the first in nine A, let me go back. 173 did not have a date by which the state board had to approve rules for the independent schools. Didn't have a date. It had to do that, but you didn't say when. You did say when up in section eight on this one piece that deals with special education categories. But there's a whole set of requirement needs to update the rules for independent schools to comply with your statute. There's no drone provision in 172 that did that. Nine A does that. Nine A says that there's a date now by which the state board has to initiate rulemaking to implement Act 173 for independent schools. And the board testified that or if it comes from the board, I guess that speaks for itself, but they would have to begin this work very quickly. Well, it's, they have to initiate rulemaking before June 30, 2021. So they have a whole year. Okay. Because these rules don't come into place now until this was 24. Okay. New requirements. So that's why nine A is so that's new. Going back up to eight, there was a little piece of rulemaking to do by November one, and we went to align those dates so that they're all being done by initiate on June 30 or 21. Okay. So this is just changing dates? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. There was a, there was no date. Nine A is new. There was no date. Generally for rulemaking in this area. That, that is new. And then the second issue is in B, they have done rules. They've begun the rulemaking process for, for the census grant funding. Okay. So they've begun that process and they're in the public comment period right now. But that public comment period will run out in the next few months. And John just wants to run out during the COVID emergency. He wants more time for people to leave a comment on the rules. This is extending the comment period on those rules until the end of this year. And then adjusting the other Administrative Procedure Act process accordingly. Debbie? Okay. So, you know, I know that in that other legislation we were working on, we changed the duties between the state board and the AOE. So these are all, but these are consistent with how we change. Yeah. They, they retained the special ed category of rulemaking. Yeah. I just thought it was worth asking. And just a note for the committee. I'm still talking with the pro tem about a desire to pass, to make sure we get past the changes we made in statewide healthcare bargaining and the changes we made on the state board. He's given me every indication that there's going to be an opportunity before we adjourn CINA DA that we'll be able to move those. So fingers crossed that that work will still go forward this year. And then lastly, section 10, which is on the top of the page, changes the effective, effective dates of act 173. So B changes, so section five will take effect until July 1, 2022. That's how we're moving that up by, by another year. And then sections 20a to 21, that's the impact school rules. That's being moved up by, by a year to 23. That's it. So on the actual effective date, why not have it all take effect on passage? Because one, one through three are the grant funding changes that won't take effect until they if you did that, you'd be moving to census grant funding today. Or right. Those sections one through three are the ones that put in census grant funding, which don't take effect until July 1, 2022. We're still under reimbursement for a couple of years. So I guess, but don't, don't, they use their own discrete dates in those sections. Right. So you have change in that law until July 1, 2022. Okay. So all that law doesn't change because you're still under the reimbursement system from law until you get there. So you can't have this go effective now. Right. I was just thinking that in those early sections, those changes each have a date attached to them. So I was wondering why those dates are all after July 1, 2022. You're all phasing in. No, I understand that, but why, why, since they all have a date attached to them, that's after passage, why we couldn't just have it all go into effect. And then all those dates kick in whenever the date is. Because the language that we're looking at here, replaces the entire chapter on special education. Okay. It's fine with me. I just was trying to understand what the triggering was necessary for. The chapter on special education today is all about reimbursement. Right. So if you change, if you try to layer it, you couldn't really layer it because here's two different systems. Yeah. Okay. So I'm going to switch to over at one point. Okay. Well, questions for Jim about any of that language beginning to end. Okay. Looks, I don't have any other questions. My only question had to do with the language from the state board, but that is just a prose version of changing dates. So let's see. And I also don't have any qualms about the independent school part of it. So does anybody have an objection to voting this out? Okay. Did we still have Jim? No. We lost Jim. Oh, Jimmy Neil. Yeah. He had a meeting at 2.30. So we will just reluctantly vote without him. Corey, I believe you're all set up to call the vote, right? Right. So I would entertain a motion for this. So I move that we approve draft 4.1 at this committee bill and recommend it to the full Senate. So Senator Ingram has moved that we move draft 4.1 favorably. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, the clerk will call the roll. He's muted. You're muted, Senator Parran. Sorry. Senator Hardy. Aye. Senator Ingram. Aye. Senator McNeil. Senator Parran. Yes. Senator Perchlick. Yes. Senator Baruch. Yes. Senator McNeil. That's it. Pass 501. Okay. Great. Jeanie, I'll scan this and get over to you. I don't have a scanner here, but I'll get it over tonight. Thanks, Corey. And I will report this and try to make it as brief as possible. I will present it as a series of confusing date changes and then move on. Let's get over here. So just a note on where we are with the House in terms of this. They had a walk-through with Jim. They suggested at least one change. I have checked in with Kate Webb. So as far as I know, we are locked and loaded to have this go through the Senate to the House. They concur and I believe our work is done. So not so fortunate on the default budget language. That does not have their agreement. So that will unfortunately idle off to one side. And as far as I'm concerned, we won't pick it up. They, as you remember, they were pushing for something more like a 4% inflator on the language, which I have told them was a non-starter for us. I made the argument that our language was a much better outcome for these districts. If it kicked in, then what's in law? Chairperson Webb agreed with that, but still would not agree to our solution. So we'll put that off to one side. Corey and then Andrew. Does she get the, the, so the part I have, I've got friends on the House committee and what worries me as we enter the summer with our budget issue is, I don't think the House committee really understands the financial situation we're in with, with, with education. And I mean, even when we were on finance last week, it was very clear that the Senate didn't have an appetite for 26 cent tax increase. But I'm not sure the House is quite there. And I think to me, this is just evident that level funding seems like a fair compromise where we are. And I just, I just want to, I don't know, just, and it's hard for you to speak to, but I worry that they just don't get the problem. Well, I, look, the House committee is composed of very smart people. I think, I think they understand the nature of the difficulties we're in, but they are for reasons that I've never been able to figure out. They're very much in sync always with the superintendents and Jeff Francis. So if you remember the, Ruth and Debbie will remember this, the, the lead bill, the problem we had was that Jeff was very silent in our committee and then went over to the House and bid them up in terms of dollar amounts to a point where we couldn't follow them and we wound up in a contentious three week conference with them. So, you know, what I've said to Jeff is you're so influential and successful that you've now gotten your districts nothing, no change in the law. So, I imagine at a certain point, they will see what we've done as a, as you say, as a good compromise. If they don't, then current statute will have to suffice and we can't, we can't make them go along. Andrew? Yeah, on that, on that point, I had talked to one of our districts that doesn't have a budget and is worried about this and mentions this issue with that the House not agreeing to our language. That resulted in me getting a call from a member of Ways and Means that said that the Ways and Means Committee is working with the Education Committee on this issue. So, they are talking about the larger economic issues and the state is facing. The way it was portrayed to me is that they are working on, I don't know if I want to call it a counter proposal, but they're working on a, on a proposal that would allow another option to be made. They specifically are concerned about those districts that, for no fault of their own, it wasn't that the voter said no, but they just never got a vote out that they are working on a proposal. They think those districts should get treated differently than the districts that actually had a no vote. So, I was told they're going to be working on kind of our language at 100%, but then a different track for these districts that never got to have a vote. Yeah, I just, I have a hard time seeing that because, you know, you're still saying we're going to skip the voters. And actually Jeff Francis' proposal, as I told you last time, was really to skip the voters, which was to, as he described it to me initially, was to give failed budgets another chance and just put them into law, which, you know, I thought was, was just really ill-advised. I understand the idea that in this environment, voters will be skittish, but, you know, you could say the same thing about a presidential election. If there's an event that happens, it changes how people vote. That's part of the voting process. There's an atmosphere in which people vote. So, to say we think the atmosphere will prejudice the vote, and so we're going to take away the democratic process, I just have a very hard time with that. And I was really in, I was letting you know what they were saying. No, and Kate had mentioned that as well. You know, I was pretty clear with her that I think this is what we can do. So we'll, we'll just, you know, continue to wait on them.