Welcome to Senate Education Thursday, February 2nd, 130. We're going to do a walkthrough, start with a walkthrough on the summer study on income tax versus property tax to fund education. We're going to continue our conversation around school safety. We're going to jump then into early childhood education and get a sense of what's what's out there right now. We know there's an early childhood bill. On both sides of the house in the Senate, we want to get it. Not so much an overview of the bills want to get a sense of the landscape of early childhood. Here a little bit then from Jen Sanderson, people may recall she was in last week State Board of Education to talk about their resource needs going forward. And then tension 101 tensions 101. Those who watched yesterday will remember that we talked about your salaries and we also talked about benefits a little bit. This will give us a sense of where where we are with tensions and then mental health and schools so.  We'll talk about one o'clock and by three, if not a little bit before that, and think, or call it a pretty good week. So with that, Ms. Richter and Ms. Shepherd, thanks so much for joining us. Thank you if it's okay with the committee, I will start off. I'm legislative councilman. Any chance you could hit that got it button. There we go. Perfect. Now we can see a little clearer. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. So, do, does your committee like to have testimony with screen sharing or how do you prefer to do the presentation. That would be great. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Sorry, I didn't hear you. Oh, sorry. Yes, please. Yes. Okay. Thank you. My apologies. Great. Hopefully that is appearing. This is on the web page. It is under the committee's name not under my name. Make it a little bigger. So this study committee was enacted last session and act 175. And it did have a detailed list of charges that the study committee had to consider. And the committee did meet six times over the fall. Initially the language did require meeting beginning in July, but there was another act that had a very similar study that was created that was composed primarily of administration. Individuals at the department of taxes at the agency of education and then with a consultation with JFO. So once that committee had done its work, this committee began to meet in the fall and heard from different different contributors to that study committee. They did then have their own report, which is also available on the legislative reports webpage on the legislatures webpage. So you'll see these two and there are some differences in the recommendations. So the charge for this particular committee and before I even jump into that, I do want to say Julia Richter and myself. We staffed the committee, but as you know, we're legislative council and joint fiscal office were nonpartisan employees. So none of these recommendations reflect our individual views were just here to provide the overview much in the same way we do walkthroughs of legislation or other policy proposals. So the the income based education tax study committee was charged with studying and making recommendations for shifting the existing property tax system to an income based system. There is a list of powers and duties what the study committee was expected to look at under its legislative charge. And what I really want to highlight here that came out of the first, maybe two meetings when the study committee was meeting was that, given the time constraints the six meetings that they had to deliberate. The committee decided not to contemplate whether an income based education tax should be enacted but how it would be structured. So this report really focuses and drills down on the administrative side and some of the hurdles that creating an income based tax structure would require. So, moving on from there, I will, I'm going to stop sharing so I can scroll without making anyone sick. I'm going to jump to the conclusion. In this. So this report was structured in a way that starts with what the charges were. And then actually answered some additional questions and did decide to leave some of the charges and some other issues that were highlighted to the deliberations of the general assembly. And then within about 30 pages the report lays out the recommendations, but then also makes references to all of the work that was done during the committee meetings and Julia Richter from JFO has a lot more information on what was modeled and considered and ultimately was not recommended. So after that preamble, the committee did recommend if an income based tax were to be enacted. The committee recommended that the homestead portion of the property tax, not the non homestead so homestead which is primary dwelling, and the surrounding land that that would be repealed and replaced with an income based education tax that would have progressive rates and brackets in the same way that the personal income tax has. So I just want to stop there before I dive into more of the details to see if there are any questions and I'm happy to take a step back and explain the existing structures well since I know you've had some primers on education property tax but I don't want to get too into the weeds until I'm sure that you know where where I'm going. So pause there. Great. So within. So you have the existing structure right now where you have homestead and non homestead property tax payers, the homestead property tax payers under existing law, do those who are eligible both based on income and the value of their property can claim a homestead property tax credit. The recommendation from the study committee was to repeal the homestead property tax and the associated credit. The credit is where there's a lot of complexity that tends to confuse and frustrate many tax payers. So that was one of the focuses of this committee was how to address both the complexity of the system, how to simplify it, but also how to make it more equitable and the committee did consider the general principles of a good tax system. That is part of the report from NCSL does have sort of a list of the different principles to consider for a tax system. So the committee did focus on several of those principles notably simplicity and equity, but also noted that those principles, including progressivity in a tax system can sometimes be in tension with each other. So trying to achieve one, maybe at the expense of another one of those principles. And shepper. You know, you don't want us looking at anything right now. Correct. You know there's nothing on the screen. Yes, actually, I don't. I will share my screen again if that's okay. I'll now I'll return to that. Just trying to make this bigger for you. There you go. So the both the executive summary and the conclusions have a list of the primary recommendations from the study committee. I am showing you the conclusions because this also highlighted sort of the unanswered questions and the policy decisions that would need to be made about a lot more detail in into what would need to happen to actually create this new structure. So as I said the an income based education tax, if this were enacted would be structured very similarly to the personal income tax so with progressive marginal tax rates and income brackets. So what diverges from personal income taxes that would be on adjusted gross income so not taxable income you'd be getting into different definitions of income. But similarly to the personal income tax that would apply to all Vermont taxpayers so both residents part your residents and non residents who have Vermont income. would be adjusted to local education spending decisions so for those of you are familiar with the Brigham decision and act 60 the way that that that the legislature in an active act 60 in response to Brigham. The state is constitutionally required to provide substantially equal access to educational opportunity but the means of funding that education is not set out in the institution, nor is there a requirement for local spending decisions to be applied to that. That said the committee did focus on local spending and local decisions as as a policy priority. So the recommendation was to keep local education education spending decisions local. That would reflect those local decisions, and they would increase or decrease according to local education spending, and that would be compared to prior year average education spending in terms of setting tax rates and the timing for setting tax. The committee recommended that the current structure be maintained there would be some shifting and certainly amendments to statutory language so that it would be the education income tax that would be set. Rather than the homestead property tax yields. That would be a process where there's sort of this ministerial calculation by the Department of taxes. That is made public every December 1 and then rather than it being used to set yields that would be used to set the education income tax rate, as well as the non homestead rate and ultimately the general assembly would have the discretion to set those rates. And then revenues in the education fund and raising enough to fund local education spending. The way that the tax sort of the best way to describe it to constituents would be or really would be removing this direction. It's more about salary than anything else. So the education income tax the tax base what's actually being subject to tax would not have any link to property. It would be purely income so whether that's wages or interest income or business income. That would be the tax base and set a property that said I do want to again highlight this this proposal did not suggest removing the non homestead property tax so there would still be property tax on second homes commercial properties. Anything that's not a homestead so primary dwelling. Other things I've seen over the years in Vermont, you know, particularly in the Northeast Kingdom I think you know you might have a beautiful home, but you and your wife bought it in 1965. And it bought it maybe for $35,000 and now it's worth. Half a million dollars. And they really struggle paying those property taxes. And sometimes it forces people to sell use that income to buy something smaller or even leave the state so in some ways it would protect those folks. Really again, but you know I can see in a lot in some other communities, maybe more urban communities I don't know if that's accurate but you would have, you know, the people that are making the bigger salaries are going to have bigger houses. And so in those areas. You might be a bit of a bit of a wash. Not really looking for what I would like to respond to that actually tell me if I'm heading in the right direction or with the office. Generally yes, if I may kick that to Julia rector because I think that gets into looking at the actual data. There are some changes that would occur in the whole system. Shifting from looking at property with a credit based on income and property value moving away from that and purely looking at income. Yeah, sure. For the record Julia rector joint fiscal office. So this is something that the committee did talk about and we did do some modeling for that I would say chair campion. The position is, is certainly correct for some property owners, but it's important to keep in mind that this would be replacing the homestead property tax and homestead property tax credit. So it really determine it's really determined how it would impact a homestead property owner is really that relationship between their income and their property value. So those are the two factors that are currently determining a the homestead property tax liability is it's that homestead the household income and the property value. And then, and then one step beyond that and I know that Abby is going to get, get to this a bit further in the walkthrough of the committee's recommendations but the potential expansion of the, of who is paying towards this portion of the Education Fund. Right so currently it's the homestead property owners that are covering the homestead property portion. And many of them are receiving at least some sort of income sensitivity. So the potential expansion or the change of the homes of this, this amount of money now being raised by an income tax that is going to then depending on how it's structured shake out to two individuals who do not own homestead property. Does that does that help answer your question. Yes. So, if you could summarize for us what was sort of the motivating factor of the committee gathering. Do you remind us of that was it inequities was it schools weren't getting funded. Was it, you know, just general discrepancies around who was paying for schools. Like what were some of those things in the early discussion. Yeah, so there was in the, in the, in the early discussions the committee did look at, as, as Abby mentioned NCSL's you know six principles of good tax system so those are things like fairness, equity and equity simplicity, economic competitiveness and stability it's there's there's the six principles. I did discuss some of those and did have discussions but, but ultimately, while a lot of those discussions did focus around that tension between simplicity and fairness. There wasn't necessarily an explicit statement that I'm aware of that the committee made regarding that the answer to that question with respect to the, the intent of the committee and the legislation. I'm not sure if Abby wants to jump in on that or if we would defer to to the legislators, what their intent was center of a sheet. I just have a general question, which I think stems from my lack of knowledge in this area but one of my concerns has to do with, you know, poor communities where the salary is well below the median income in Vermont and then you're very wealthy communities. And what you know one of my concerns is, you know there's still going to be if it, what I'm worried about is a lack of equity when it comes to poor communities, compared to affluent communities and how those schools in the affluent communities are going to be funded based on the demographics. So I'm not sure exactly what my specific question is but if you have any thoughts to share on that, I appreciate it. Maybe I'll take a first stab at it and then Julia you can add to it so the tax rate would reflect local spending decisions so assuming one district. If one more affluent area is voting to spend more that would increase the tax rate, because there would be the prior average education spending if they're spending above that, then that tax rate in that school district would increase the individuals tax rate would be increased. Accordingly however they also would be taxed on the in those progressive brackets so depending on the amount of their income. If they were lower income individual their tax rate would already be lower. And then as their income is increasing they would be subject to a higher tax rate those would be set in statute and then the rate would be sort of either inflated or deflated depending on local spending decisions. And if I may follow up to to what Abby said, I mean everything that Abby just said is I'm completely correct and I and I also think it's helpful to keep in mind the context that the current Education Fund while we have these locally adjusted homestead property tax rates. It's still as a statewide Education Fund. So, in the current structure the property tax rate is not a reflection of the property wealth in that town but it's as Abby said it's the reflection of the local spending decisions. So that that that intuition that would remain the same in the proposal from the committee. Other states have moved in this direction, and I suspect that other states moved in this direction I, I'm not looking at them but I can see Collins head saying no. But would we would be the first state to do this. Okay. Yes, that's correct. Okay so there is nothing out there that says alright, this happened and then. Again, from where I'm sitting I, I think, and this would be, I'd be curious to know and it gets a little bit to what center machine was asking. I wonder if we could see a pretty significant decrease in what funding would look like for schools but I think that would depend center my assumption would be. So, whatever crunchers would maintain the income, the revenues coming into the program, and they would adjust it income tax in this case to match to to provide a sufficient amount of revenue to cover the current and projected costs. And then just create a system that under underfunded the program from the start, I mean, all you have to do is match the current income revenue. Yeah, with the replacement system. I mean, isn't it that kind of simplistic but you know you're you just have to find that equilibrium. Yeah, and then start with a new with a new revenue source being income tax versus property. Simplistic example. Yeah. So the education fund in the way that education is funded in Vermont is sort of the reverse of the general fund process where you have a certain amount of revenue that you then decide how to spend it's sort of flipped on its head for the education fund so you have education and spending decisions that then drive the amount of revenue that is raised through currently property tax but in this proposal would be through the non homestead property tax all other revenue sources and this income tax. So you would not be decreasing the amount of funding for education through this proposal. And then at the center she's going potentially a community could then decide they want to increase or establish an additional tax relative to their community relative to their own needs but that's, you know, that's separate from creating the general education fund, which would be would be filled by this new example. With income tax with the tax and community to get up. Good, good bump up good out of an additional tax on top of that if they were they chose to get simplistic perspective. That's that's that's why I need the simplistic perspective. And how that power center reaches outline, you might interact with Brigham decision, if you're also raising additional funds because districts do raise additional funds now. And I did sometimes there are penalties and all that kind of thing. Correct. So when you say the word penalty I assume you're referring to the access funding penalty. Yeah, currently. Yeah, so that is currently there's moratorium on that for several more fiscal years. There is within the definition of education spending in title 16 there is already sort of an exclusion from that for other funding sources, including any governmental funding sources fundraising. Those are already excluded from the education spending definition and it's that definition that that drives how the tax rate is set for that local school district. Sorry, did I just confuse. Okay, great. I did also want to make the point that the education tax rates were not set in this proposal for that exact reason you're just discussing senator of how to raise the amount of revenue that's currently being raised to fund education. And I think that the tax base were to shift. How would those rates adjust to spending, and that there's a sort of cascade of policy decisions that would impact how the rates would be set. The primary sort of, I'd say primary because it's probably the most expensive policy decision is what to do with renters, and that was one of the legislative charges, because if renters are paying through their rent in theory they're paying the non homestead property tax because that would be considered like a commercial property, because it's even though it's a primary dwelling the owner the individuals living there are not the owners. Their property would be subject to non homestead property tax but renters would also be paying based on their income. So that was that is one of the charges that this committee was asked to look at is how would renters either be held harmless or exempt from either the new income tax or non homestead property tax so the proposal in this report was to create a credit. Based on the amount of rent paid that would be available to renters to offset both the income to offset the income tax because the assumption is that they are already paying the non homestead tax through rent. I flag that because it is one of the more expensive in terms of what the education fund would have to would have to support is a renter credit, which would then impact tax rates for homeowners and other anyone else who is paying the income tax throughout the state. So that this report does not propose rates or the precise marginal brackets or structure for an income tax, because those policy decisions would have to be made first. Additionally, the non homestead tax was not a great for that was not specifically proposed there is one already under statute. It is typically not with study session to raise sufficient revenues to fund education. And with one of you mind emailing us when you have time I know I could Google this but you get all these different reports out there where Vermont falls in New England and then in the United States as it relates to property tax. I mean I have a sense and I've seen different things out there but I would I would like to see that number. And of the property tax liability or rates. Property tax rates. Okay, so I might defer to Julia here because she might have done. It can be more clear and more helpful. How's it $250,000. What's it tax, what property taxes here in Vermont versus rest of New England, compared to the United States rest of the United States. I just be curious and we met with Sheriff center finance today we know we're at 85,000 students, we're going down things, you know, we're spending up, I think, I don't know, we're spending on students. So what is that that what does that look like for some people that's a difficult number for others it's an acceptable number. And so some of these things are sort of floating around my head and I think the same to say that other committee chairs as well so just to get a for this committee to get a sense of what's out there as it relates to property taxes on $250,000 home would be helpful. Yeah, so I mean it's a really you're you're raising a really interesting question that I wish I had a quick answer to the challenge with comparing property tax rates across the Northeast, as well as across the United States is that for it's very different from other states because of the very, very generous income sensitivity that Vermont provides to property tax payers. So when you've got a $250 home, while there's there's a few different things to be considered one that the property tax on that is really going to differ by community based on spending decision. And to the total amount paid in property taxes, when including the income sensitivity is going to vary dependent on the homeowners or the household income. The states in the Northeast and across the country have their own property tax schemes that differ from Vermont, as well as the way that education is funded using property taxes also differs so Vermont has these. Education fund and the and the homestead property taxes as well as non homestead, go into that statewide education fund, whereas other states have different schemes for funding education, many use local property taxes or some combination of state and local funding. Those are a lot of the caveats that I would or considerations that I that I would raise when comparing property tax rates to other states I can certainly look to pull together a comparison but I do think it's important to keep all of those things in mind that it that it is sort of looking at at at apples and oranges in a lot of ways.  I'm not asking you to do any work on it, but if you happen to see something out there that is put out by, you know, a solid agency or, you know, organization, it would be interesting to see how they've sort of threatened this needle to kind of give policy makers and indication of what might be happening state to state. Certainly, I will, I will look I don't want to promise anything right now but I can think of in the back of my mind a couple of helpful resources. And I will say it's not a silly question at all that's a, it's a question that I've tried to answer myself many times because it could be very informative for policy decisions. But as you mentioned it's it is a difficult needle to thread in those comparisons. So I think it's, I think it's a relevant question. We're going to start to get around this topic. I'm also curious though about this Richter's comment about the income sensitivity. Yeah, what's that really mean. You know what, you know, not not, you know, don't need to study on it but I'm just curious if there's something which explains or outlines at a very high level what what you meant by income sensitivity in relation to property tax. You know, in this conversation to constituents. I can't get my head around anything would be helpful, rather than current. Would you say a few words now. Sure, I can definitely say a few words now I would also be happy to to come back and do a big picture at Finance 101. When I when I'm talking about income sensitivity. Vermont has, you may have also heard of the property tax credit. There's a dependent on a household's property value and a household income so that can generally be thought of all the income of the folks living under that roof. You compare the two so that the household value that the value of the homestead and the land and the value of the income. Independent on the relationship between those two, as well as the homestead property yield and the income yield which the general assembly sets every year in the yield bill. There's a property tax credit that may be applied to that property tax bill of that household. Essentially, you're looking at two to big picture numbers to come up with ultimately what is the total tax liability or what is the total tax bill net tax bill of that household and that's taking into account the house site about the homestead value, as well as the household income. Is that helpful I know that that's like a few few complex sentences but big picture, big picture that that that covers it abby abby do you want to jump in. No that was great I would just add there's. There are a few layers of complexity to it as well because there is both the based on income and house site value for the state property tax credit there's also something you may have heard called the circuit breaker. That helps individuals under lower income threshold of $47,000 so there's also a credit against municipal taxes. And the and the credit against municipal taxes is born is is paid out of the general fund. So the income sensitivity for education property taxes is covered by the education fund. And then the the the municipal circuit breaker that abby mentioned is a general fund expense. That's right and this study committee did not recommend changing significantly in any way that municipal circuit breaker. But this study committee did recommend repealing what's called income sensitivity or the property tax credit because there would no longer be a homestead property tax. One other point that was made in the property tax changes and recommendations within the committee's report was to the non homestead property tax so property tax paid on commercial and rental units second homes that property tax would actually be enlarged, meaning the tax base would be bigger, because it would apply to parcels of land even if they have a homestead on them. Only the home said so the house or dwelling and two acres would be exempt from non homestead property tax but the rest of the property would become subject to non homestead property tax. And that would help offset in part the expense of paying for a renter credit. And there were a few other smaller policy recommendations and then several that were. I don't want to say punted but we're left to the discretion of the general assembly because they would take a significant more significantly more deliberation. And those are listed on this is in the conclusion of the report, which is showing on the screen right now it starts on page 26. But I'm afraid I will have to leave you for another committee in about five minutes so I might take any more questions or turn it over to Julia to talk about some of the changes that were contemplated but we're not ultimately included in the report. We also have to move into school safety, actually just a few minutes, but I this is, this is a good sort of starting, you know the conversation and helping us dig into this. I'm going to talk to Senator coming to see her thoughts on what parts of this she may or may not even be contemplating we haven't had that conversation and based on that, I suspect she will hunt some of these conversations right back to education for us to partner with finance So unless I see any other questions right now, I think we have your report we have that overview of what you've provided us with this thus far, unless there was a pressing topic or issue one of you want to mention to us or something some concluding comments. No, I, I would encourage, encourage the committee feel free to reach out to, to me, or to Abby, no I'm afraid, but feel free to reach out if you have any questions or if you want to dive into, you know, understanding that finance system better I know that it is certainly complex. And I'm happy to help you work through, work through understanding some of those nuances. Yes, please feel free to reach out with any questions. There's a lot more in this report that be happy to share with you. Okay, I think we'll leave it there for now. Thank you both. Thank you. Miss St. James. So we have the side by side I think it might have been one of the gentlemen from Robin possibly asked that we, I don't know who was somebody on this committee, we thought it made a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense to sort of see where things now as it relates to safety policies versus what the administration is proposing. So those of you who may have just joined us. This is school safety about the administration before the proposal on school safety, and we're trying to understand still what direction we may head in we're hearing from different constituencies that we tomorrow and next week on this. But right now, let's try to get a handle on what's in statute and what might change so with that Miss St. James. You're feeling a little better. Thank you. That's St. James office of legislative council. And so what I have for you is side by side you'll see these more often as bills bounce back and forth from one side of the general assembly to the other. And so to use them generally it's just a demonstrative demonstrative way to show you the differences between the houses bill versus the Senate bill. Sometimes it's your own bill as introduced versus the changes that the committee is making. And so this is actually a really friendly way to use this type of document, because there's not a lot to compare. But to orient you to this document. The. So the direction received is the side by side on current school safety statute. What's in statute now. And what's in the proposal. And so. You'll see the proposal if you remember we walked through it last week. Was relatively short there were, I think, four separate sections. But through a school safety, the concept of school safety is kind of woven throughout title 16. So I included for your review. Chapter 33 from title 16, which is what the governor's proposal or a always proposal is suggesting, at least starting suggesting making changes to. And then I also included sections from chapter 25, which is attendance and discipline and contains the laws around like guns on school property and school resource officers. And then I also contained excuse me also pulled out some of the sections of chapter 31. That have things on there like emergency medication stock and concussion protocol. So pretty wide range. But if we start at the very top of page 1 there. You'll see on the left hand side everything on the left hand in the left hand column is going to be current law. And anything in the right hand column is going to be the proposal by the administration. And I've highlighted those that new language in yellow. So the first thing you'll see there on the first page there is that the. A we's policy suggestions start by adding section 1480 emergency operations plan. There's nothing specifically in current law around this topic. So there's nothing on the left hand side you'll see there. And then the next section you'll see and this is what you'll see going forward. You'll see this more. When we look at side by side, you'll see that in the left hand column is the law is it currently stands. And in the right hand column, you'll see the law that the, that we is proposing. So all that language that struck through their proposing getting rid of and then the highlighted underlined languages what they are recommending adding. And you'll see that they are recommending changes to current law in the statute related to fire and emergency preparedness drill. And then our current law also in section 1482 has a section on safety patrols. This is really related to. Schools organizing safety patrols that involves like crossing guards directing students not to cross specific areas, etc. And then you'll see there's nothing. There's no similar provision. There's no recommendations regarding this in the proposal. And then we're on page 4 now. Section 1483 is current law and that is a requirement that this chapter chapter 33 is printed in manuals or handbook prepared for the guidance of teachers. And you'll notice that we has no similar provision or is not recommending any changes to that section. And then that's the last of the current law in this chapter. And then on the right hand side, you'll see that there's the rest of a proposal there the acts of control and visitor managed policy and the proposed section 1448. And then the behavioral threat assessment team proposed section 1485. And that's at the extent of what I am aware of as a we school safety proposal now. But again, I did just want to draw your attention at the concept of school safety is kind of woven throughout chapter 16. So it did include some other areas that at least on their face touch on that concept. I don't know if you want me to go into them or just leave it there. This St. James just one question night. I believe the current 1483 chapter on printed material and books and such. Is that, isn't that possibly the intent of the proposed 1480 emergency operations plans, kind of to have a, what do you call it all hazards emergency response pre planning concept. I would think I think that that would be what would be used for manuals and handbooks guidance to teachers and schools and such. So that's the concept of, you know, getting excited. Here's one of my favorite ways to answer these questions intent is your area. So I can't speak to the intent of any proposed language that would really be for a we to speak to or for you to define. But you'll, you'll notice that we is proposing this in a separate statute separate from what's in current law. We intended those two sections to cancel each other out or to augment each other would be a discussion to have with a week. Okay, thank you. Let's spare. What was you, you expressed a concern last when we first walked through the bill in particular, could you remind the committee of that concern. It was related to and I don't mean to put that spot anyway, but you articulated. You know, teachers didn't sign up to do a certain part of kind of emergency planning. And I just want to make sure I'm noting that in this and we're going to hear from the NEA. Yeah, well I was reminded of what I said yesterday when I heard three hours of testimony on from medical professionals who've been assaulted and attacked over the last few years, which is just that these folks are going to these professions to be skilled combatants or, you know, skilled. That's the word I'm looking for first line of defense. Yeah, I know that the sum of the medical professionals that we listen to are definitely school and the escalation. And I don't know a lot about that the escalation training but it's just, I don't know the two are very disparate and don't know well. And that's been my experience working with other educators. I think it will dissuade some folks from entering the profession. Thank you for that. Thank you for that. And again, I need to bring a spot that I remember you had expressed something and you can always put in. Okay, then furthermore. You also said something. Okay. And we're going to hear I think from Mr. Robinson. Thank you. Just for one moment. If our meeting on 10 he's going to be here later today. Okay, he serves on the governor's safety task force is the one who's best equipped to speak to us on this I don't want to. That's fair step up and that's something in error. Yeah, that's fair. And so I won't ask you anything else. Okay, thank you. Miss St James anything else at this point in terms of you know where we're at versus where we may be heading this is a very, very, very helpful document. And no this is really. Without knowing more about where you want to end up it's hard for me to offer any sort of advice. And to point out that the concept of school safety is again kind of woven throughout title 16 in different areas. So just because it's not accounted for in the chapter where we're looking at adding new language doesn't automatically mean it's not accounted for somewhere else. Just to highlight that. Any other final question. Yes, please. I put the right. I just wanted to say, and you all did hear from our president thought to me the other week and he did echo that points that Senator Hulick said so I think that whether you're a teacher or professional or other school employee. Obviously folks who go into first responder professions perceive tremendous tremendous amount of hours of training to make life and death decisions and split seconds. As Senator she knows very well. And that's not what necessarily teachers are doing. So, just want to, I think I spoke to that previous and Senator Gulick points, I think. Any other questions here or actually in case I forget to convey this to him. If there is an alternative proposal. I would like to see that the community would like to see that. Yeah, that would be helpful. Thank you. Anything else. Okay. The St. James thank you very much. I'm going to take a little break and come back and have Ali Richards and Sarah Kenny at 230 take us through early childhood education, what it looks like right now in this state so welcome back to standard education there's a February 2 231 in the afternoon. We have Ali Richards and Sarah Kenny both of whom are from left scroll kids. Thank you both for joining us. And at the table here a little bit. I've asked Ms Richards and this Kenny to come in to talk about just give us the overview of what early childhood education looks like right now in the state of Vermont we know from our time. Well, to number of things that I think we know. Many of us have heard from constituents that this is an important issue to them we've also heard in our callways and recent those put in that puts people in kind of different paths, if you will, different directions to move in, but just getting an overview, all of us would be helpful since some of this likely could end up in this committee, if it has to do with particularly pre K. So with that, the floor of yours and any information you. Wonderful. Thank you so much for the record I'm Ali Richards CEO of what's for kids. I'm joined by Sarah Kenny to policy officer let's her kids and it is always an honor to be in here and talking about this with you all and I'm going to do very high level of just a little bit of an discussion about what her kids are work, the childcare early education through crisis and landscape in Vermont today. And then you know Sarah can go into a little bit more of the detail on some of those pieces that you're talking about with like the interactions of the different channels and then we can I think together field questions to dig deeper in any of that as we've been living and bringing it from a policy and community perspective for 10 years. I have a PowerPoint presentation that just kind of has some slides that I like what Ali's going to be saying so I'll just share the screen. So very happy to be able to share the ground work as we sort of see it for this crisis frankly and I, you know, doesn't bring me pleasure to use that word but I think you'll see with the statistics that truly that is what it is so just first a little bit of us, Vermont's childcare campaign isn't sort of affectionately become known as led by let's her kids we are a nonprofit organization, and we've been working on this issue from the ground up in communities for over a decade. We really do it in three ways. We have been looking for true sustainable and long term solutions for the zero to five early education crisis through policy change, and that is truly what it will take including long term investment. We've been looking for a long time, national studies within communities in Vermont, and, and through thousands of discussions over many, many years and it truly is policy change and public investment, that is the answer to this long term situation. In the meantime, while we work on policy, we have been on the ground with early educators with community members and leaders for decades in that regard, understanding this issue from a school perspective, a program perspective, a workforce perspective building pipelines building quality and building capacity. So I have to say that we have a policy arm, we have programs on but that's really, you know, fixing the system, and readying the system for investment with a real keen eye to implementation of sustainable solutions that will actually work as they're rolled out. And the third thing is people. As you may know, we actually have over 35,000 volunteers from all walks of life, actively engaged in some way, elevating their voices, sharing their stories, explaining how this works for them for their families and really feeding into the policy solutions walking towards. So that's a little bit about let's throw kids and just our background in a nutshell. So who are we coming from. And I'm really sorry to report that while we have been working on this for a long time the situation in childcare has never been more dire. It's a very interesting situation because we've also never been closer to a sustainable solution. So this is the moment we're all living in and to your point Senator about the bill, you know be introduced just yesterday. That is the vehicle for transformation that we're you know in the game discussing this together finally develop pieces in place and we'll talk about that, you know, but why is it never been more dire. Before the pandemic hit three out of five kids in Vermont under six, who needed access to early childhood education, didn't have access to it. So they needed to be in an out of home setting, and they couldn't find three out of five kids that's 8700 Vermont children who needed this didn't have it. So before you enter Canada. They didn't have it. For those who were able to find it families, paying up to 30% of their household income on that childcare. And, you know, that's more than a mortgage payment in some case right but then many say well we feel lucky because we're able to find it. Okay, we'll pay it all social economic levels, up to 30% of income were seen. At the same time, early educators who do this critical work with children at the most crucial time of their development and you can certainly dive into the brain science. Anytime you all want to. It's pretty deep unequivocal body of research over the last 50 years about brain science child development, and this most crucial time between the zero to five years. The educators that are with these children educating them, nurturing them during this time are in the bottom 2% of all professions they make on average $14 an hour without benefits. Okay. And so you guys have seen the signs on the very Montpelier Road for $18 an hour to work at McDonald's so just start thinking about right the market forces incentives at play here we're talking about early child education, and a system that the supply the demand, the early educator makes $14 an hour that benefits and parents are paying 30% of their income because the payers are the family and they cannot afford to pay more. And they are the early educators who are not able to take a full wage and actually have the true cost of care, you know be present in their work. So, at the same time, what's a little mind modeling is while this is an early child education and brain development issue. It's also a workforce development issue, because our workforce is smaller than it's been the last 30 years as you all know, there are vacancies, people would like to work. Many, many, many majority of folks who have exited the labor force in Vermont site childcare, the inaccessibility of it inability to find it or afford it as a key barrier for them. Just get and totally exiting work labor force altogether. So that's the dynamic that we're working within, as far as the numbers on the ground. So as I mentioned earlier, while it's never been more dire now add a pandemic to that. These folks were open. Most of them were open from the very beginning through this caring for our kids caring for our children, without healthcare benefits throughout a person right. So, all these systemic issues now layer on the burnout, you know, and the turnover that you see in this workforce, you know, and they're the workforce behind the workforce and they are seeing all those things are layered upon the low systemic low pay and other factors that have just, you know, created the system that we see today. And yet, we're here optimistically, you know, in despite this really, really difficult moment and and really I can't put to find a point on it. We hear from very large very high profile very high quality early education programs, almost every week that they are about to close, including yesterday, you know, so these and think about for a minute when they do close the impact on those families, hundreds of kids who do not get that early that they need those families who cannot go to work. And then all those employers who are impacted in that way. So there is good news, which is we have been working on this as a community for a long time. There is a path forward and all the puzzle pieces are in place. The biggest one being two weeks ago, the ran corporation pushed out there financing study. And yesterday, a draft bill was introduced so these are key key components but what I want to sort of push on is, we have been together with legislators, you know champion the way, working on this from a policy perspective, the most clear and bolder of that is h171 or at 45. So, what that did from 2001, it said it is our goal in the state of Vermont to have a zero to five high quality affordable accessible system of early childhood education in the state with the twin pillars and you know I'm biased because I have twins therefore your old world twins I live this and breathe this and every minute of my day. Compensation for early educators and affordability for families and no more than 10% of their income. Those are the pillars of this policy and I will say they are the pillars of this policy in Vermont from h171 and the work we did together. They're also the pillars of this policy nationally, you know in the national bills we've seen come through on this on all the other states who are leading on this we have a really robust network of TA and support and you know sort of sharing best practices and lessons with these other states who are working on this. It's very, very valid because we're pioneers in the space, it is very validating that best practice and research has gotten us all to the same conclusions, a system of high quality accessible affordable early education, you know, really starts and ends with a fairly compensated workforce, which really drives quality and that affordability for families that allows for access and last level finger work. Has another state taken this I mean I think you said municipalities there have been some for tell us what's out there in the United States is generally no state has taken a comprehensive approach to zero to five the way we are about to do with the bill that was introduced yesterday in Vermont. Okay, different states have done good things on pre K. Okay, you know, good good good things on home visiting good things on you know pockets of this. You see some municipalities getting pieces of it right. New Mexico just had an amazing step for the very unique to them funding source that they decided to put entirely towards early child education. Now, again, our scope and it was for sort of indigenous peoples lands and oil money, oil money. They just passed a constitutional amendment in New Mexico to guarantee a right to early childhood education for birth to buy a new Mexico has been giving free childcare for the past year to everybody and I think 400% of the federal poverty level and they will be working this legislative session to try to expand that using this funding that this funding source that they have to. So they're like they're running in the running. But our scale is I really think that that is an important point check campaign which is our scale is an advantage here, because there's 8700 kids who need this sort of access. You know, and I'll get to this in a minute through the Rand report but they put a huge chunk of change towards this, and it is not going to fully fix it is going to move them really beautifully in the right direction. So that's we are in the running to be a pioneer on this, and I'll say why is that important. When we corner the market on this, including regionally it has a huge opportunity for our demographics right, you know you can find and afford early child education in Vermont. Huge pull for workers, huge pull for young families which you all know we need huge pull for early educators, and that's really, really important because we know all the things we care about are heavily burdened by our demographics and this is one of the few things that actually has a promise for this giant second sound of folks into Vermont, you know in a very realistic way. So, you know, h 171 basically then said, these are our goals as a state of mind, we shall 10% affordability compensation really educators that it said, here's $12 million of investment to get some foundational pieces including an IT system I know that's not sort of the most fun piece of the puzzle but it is a necessary one and it has already been funded and established through you know the child development division ahs, and these are really important building blocks, then it said, what questions do we still not have the answers how exactly are you going to govern this, you know what govern regulate the system in an accountable data driven way, and how you can pay for and how much does really cost to go from today to where we need to be. So the first was a governance study done by national partners that came to Vermont did a robust stakeholder process with building bright futures as a partner, and gave solid recommendations, primarily that the punchline being a single power entity, the state of Vermont has accountability over the system and showing it happens, and that and they that report was published last summer and is available, and is a big part of the discussion that we have today. Yes, not the Department of Education for the agency. I was agnostic as to exactly where, but it basically describe the situation showed what other states sort of do some of the lessons learned in good and bad directions from other states, and took a really I would say pragmatic look at the politics and policies on the ground in Vermont, and made this recommendation of an empowered entity, sort of you pick where, but then they suggested actually that it had dual reporting to a OE and a HS to ensure that there was at least both voices. Just that the single empowered entity was the key component of what they recommended they did their initial recommendation was a new separate like agency of early childhood education which some other states have gone for is and they said if that is impractical right now there's also another option for having a single empowered entity was always saying sort of cross across agencies and be able to support all of the early education related work happening across both agencies. And I'm certain that the folks who offered that report building right futures was tasked by you all with doing that report and they contracted with these national experts who did the report and I'm sure that they'd be happy to come in and talk to you more about the, what was in the report. I do recommend a look at that it was very good work they wrote that a consultant who did it wrote the book on governance really childhood systems across this country, and they did a very robust process they spent a lot of time and a lot talking to key folks. So it is a good resource, in our opinion. The other study was the ram report and that is what came out two weeks ago and that was the final piece of the puzzle so if the punchline again is sustainable public investment that actually allows this to be a public good that is funded enough for the supply to meet the demand early and then affordability for families at a reasonable percentage of their income. How much does that cost so the rain report was incredibly important moment in this narrative, because what it said was, here are real numbers from an objective third party that is trusted by this body and has done actually this exact launchpad work for other sectors like the tax and cannabis system in Vermont, they came in they said here is through our lens, the numbers on the ground, and gave a cost estimate that range from $179 to $279 million with the underlying factors that you know sort of drive those numbers, and then they made recommendations as to how you fund it and basically concluded, it is within Vermont's means and reach financially to fund this system for the outcomes that you see within sort of our collective financial means. And so that's what we've been waiting for, sort of a nod to yes, here's a blueprint, it's not everything I want to be very clear but it is for this body to take and say okay we now have the detail on paper that we can now use to run. And that's where you see that building introduced yesterday which is a huge support so yes, please. So if all of a sudden, so I, someone on this committee had two children under five. How does the Rams ran reports sort of distribute funds or how does that sort of what was their sort of process in this, you know what it would, would I register the child to go and get reversed or how would that just tell us a little bit about that. And that gets into it's all starting to cost it over you because that gets into a lot of the mechanics I think that you're getting to as well center campaign which is. There is a mechanism today called child financial assistance and again to your question about other states are doing etc. There is a best practice it's pretty well trodden right we've been studying this issue what do children need zero to five for 50 plus years. And we really haven't moved on it as a country or a states because it takes dollars yeah right so there has been that the only benefit to that is, you know, the very sad part is we really know what our kids and families need and we just haven't acted on it. But the good news is we have a lot of time to understand a lot of the unintended consequences the research the policy sort of best practices. So childcare financial systems is the current vehicle. It basically is a sort of pipeline of funds into the actual delivery so a childcare program. We have what's called a mixed delivery system today in Vermont so it can be a for profit nonprofit childcare or a school based pre K or a home based childcare home. They're governed by you know the same sort of regulations. And again all this is stuff we can really dive deeply into that's helpful. Yeah, answers the question but in the random base on that based on that and I will just go one step further because it's an interesting situation that actually comes into play a lot when we think about the dynamics of childcare policy. We sort of just can't do one thing without the other, which is also why you hear us out there talking a lot about you can't partially fund the system anymore, you partially fund the system. It's just almost not a good use of money anymore right we built the system we've understood it we shorted up. And now you basically need to say this is either public infrastructure, zero to five, or it's not. For example, you see some proposals that only will increase the affordability for families. That just means you're going to get more families tuition assistance, so they can afford childcare. That doesn't mean that childcare is going to be available. What do I mean by that. It's all the same sort of coin. That's what child financial assistance is that's what the Rand Ford sort of said, you basically say, This is how much money it costs to run an early education education program. The main factor of that cost is the salary and compensation of the early educator in the room like any business. So, basically you say this, we have said, you know, this is a, this is a private market we haven't said this is public infrastructure. So, we don't actually allow there to be enough money in the system, as the parents or the key payer to pay a full wage so what this says is look. Rand says, if you really want to fix this, you say this is the true cost of this care with a real wage to that early educator, and this is how much it costs. And that's just true cost of care.  And you're getting as a program the true cost of care, so you can actually run a program, and have your early educators get a wage, why is this so crucial that's why it all comes together. If you do one piece without the other, you will not have enough childcare, you'll not have enough early childhood education spaces. And it won't be affordable so it all sort of works together in that way which is I just really critical that's why I'm sort of leaning on that it's sort of a little bit of a complexity of it, it's a strength and a weakness but it's also why it sort of works beautifully and so you can push this money in through that way, but if you sort of only do one piece of the puzzle, you just, it won't work. Yeah, 1000 questions. Great. So, if the shortfalls 9,000. Yeah, but the cost the ramp cost is quarter million. Yes. 250 million. Yes, it's roughly 27,000 per student. Yeah, this is the short this is the gap. But currently we're our education system is probably roughly 18,000 per student. What's the delta. Well so a bunch of really good question. There's two key to things of that. So first of all, this money, the gap isn't just to fund. There's been children who do not have access today. What it does is it says to a childcare center. But it's all happens at the same time so basically if you look at early childhood education program a in Vermont today, they're paying their people $14 an hour about benefits they cannot hold on to their workforce they cannot meet the need or closing. You're right. It's there's and they can't expand or grow. What this money does is it goes in three different ways, it goes into allow for more children to have access to your point. It just as much immediately goes in to pay wages to all the early educators who are currently doing this work today. And three, it gives her monitors a rebate, so they can afford childcare including all the monitors that paid for today. So every dollar goes to a human. It goes to lifting the wages of all the early educational force the current and the new to all Vermonters who can actually pay only 10% of their income, the current and the new, and then it allows for all that access for all those. Does that make sense. Okay. Where's the private industry. Where's that reflectiveness in what way. I think what you're proposing, I think that the Rand solution is, is what you're supporting the sense that there's a, there's, there's currently a private sector is the private sector. You know, is this like pure public, like 100% public. Okay, that's right. I mean, the private programs that are providing the service right now. Oh, yeah, lawyers, right. That yes, plus just private industry, somebody's setting up, you know, they're not it's not a state. So what are you saying private, it's a commercial so what are you providing a daycare or, you know, the current childcare programs. Yeah, yeah. So what we have today, I believe is what you're asking is a mixed delivery system. So it basically says, you could be a nonprofit or for profit but it's almost entirely private on his private. It is private that with the exception of some schools who are offering pre K to three and four years old. And so they were basically saying is the model of childcare has never worked. It basically leaves entirely to the private, which says, you basically create your own business, you charge families, more than they can pay. And you cut corners on your costs by not providing the true cost of care you're not paying wages to your early educators, you're not be able to do the true quality that we all need. So what this system is in this country and that's practice is that you then take public dollars to fill the gap so it's basically a tuition assistance public tuition assistance into that. But there's a sub sub section of families that provide their own care. They choose to bring the stay out of the workforce and they bring up their children until age five and then yes they take advantage of state provided education system or not. And then they bring up their age five. That would change under families that still have numbers include those families. So we do numbers because that was one of those things they just like flew by. Yeah, 10,000. Yeah, they did not assume that 100% of families would be using childcare in their estimates. We have a likely to need care estimate, and we've done a supply and demand analysis every other year, and we do it by county and by state, and it's based on census data and the likely to need care threshold in Vermont to your exact point senator is about 70% of kids under five have all available parents in the workforce and need some form out of home care. 70% of you. I think birth and five needs all their parents in the labor force. So that means that they're likely to need some kind and for some families that means a grandparent or you know some other option but most of those families are going to require some kind and then there's also the University families who maybe aren't in the labor force right now because they can't find childcare because it's such a scarcity right now so random their estimates. I think they're actually getting back to you all with exactly what they used for percentages of the likely to need care population at each age bracket but they did not assume that every family with a kid under five would be in childcare. So the system would still would remain entirely voluntary for families, but when I think the key difference is that there are so many families right now who are not working as much as they would like to or working. The job that they would like to or not in the labor force at all because they cannot find childcare because we have this scarcity right now so that's what this would help us. What I love about your line of questioning is you're uncovering why best practice in this country is the sort of public private marketplace this is what it is basically what we're having promoting which is again very well trodden and well researched is a public private marketplace with the sort of the public support to make the market forces work because right now the market forces don't allow the supply to demand. And that's the equilibrium I don't get understand why, why private private childcare is not a larger part of the solution. It is the entire solution. It's just not working the business model underline it doesn't work because basically what and I will say we great for us to talk to some of our business champions who've been leading the charge on this at some point because they help explain it beautifully. It's basically you're charging your customers for your product, more than they can afford. That's why supply is not there's always a safety note, which you can't afford but I'm just, let me just listen more and all. Thanks. So, so when I've been thinking about childcare for the past year, I mean I've been thinking about it in two different, but two different prongs you know the first being that it's, you know the good and right thing to do to make sure that kids have, you know, between zero to five, you know, they have opportunities to learn and do things that help them with positive development. And there's the second part of it, which is the economic impact, and you know you, you guys are living and breathing childcare so you're far more articulate than I am when it comes to the economic impact but I was wondering if you could expand a bit more on how this will impact you know the individuals who are, who are getting rebates and you know making sure that childcare workers have a livable wage, you know what what type of effect would this have on the entire state. Yeah, I don't want to talk all. You know, the close begs the question of why is lots of kids exist. It's not because you know we just think childcare is a fun thing to spend our time on it's because a bunch of Vermont entrepreneurs and business folks and folks from all different sectors said, we care deeply about the state. And we don't think it's on a sustainable path economically. So what are we going to do about it and then it's a little counterintuitive to draw the lines to zero. And then we focusing on zero to five early child education, because everything you just said, if you actually get this right, it's one of those rare opportunities that our lack of action is causing us extreme economic stress. And when we actually invest in it, it pays for itself immediately and three times over, and then over a lifetime of the kids and why does it do that. And basically, as I mentioned before, when you invest in the system to actually allow there to be enough of it high quality and it to be accessible in an affordable way. The money goes to Vermonters so Vermonters actually have more money in their pockets, because they're not spending 30% of their income on childcare. The early education workforce, mostly women, poverty wages today, thousands of women making poverty wages in Vermont, they actually get a livable wage, more akin to a kindergarten teacher so it's not wildly out there. It is just more akin to a kindergarten teacher so that lifts an entire sector. And then it puts thousands of people back to work the ran report estimated up to 3000 Vermonters would go back to work immediately if they could find or afford childcare. The economic impact on our state when you put 3000 people back to work is noble. It's like hundreds of millions of dollars it's an econometric calculation that we've actually done with some of our partners before. So that's just alone if you want to, Senator put the workforce mobilization piece that pays for itself annually over the annual public investment. What that does to gross taxes from 3000 products, the taxes from those 3000 being in jobs, and that doesn't calculate other economic impacts of their spending ability. That doesn't calculate the impact the sort of ripple effect of businesses being able to fill vacancies increase productivity and grow. So that's another whole other dimension. Then there's a secondary discovery right so and by the way, to do this you'd have to have about 600 new childcare programs and 2000 more early educators so you're bringing jobs into the economy through the supply. And then they all have janitorial services food services right so there's a ripple effect there so a primary direct benefit a secondary benefits or multiplier effect. And then there's a and people haven't really wanted to lean in on this but maybe is the Education Committee you do because we're like okay well this is an immediate investment we need. So what is the immediate and acute, you know stimulus like effect that it has all the things I just mentioned, but the deep, deep potential savings and also benefit and sort of sustainability for the state of Vermont is when you give children what they need for a healthy life at the most crucial years of their development, but which is before five when 90% of the architecture of your brain is formed and I just want to sit on that for a second because this is again what you all talk about. It's, it's reading right arithmetic, and it's executive function, the ability to have healthy relationships with others, anger management, critical thinking, the resiliency against addictive behaviors, you know, propensity for or against cardiovascular disease The development origins of health and disease related to whether or not you're getting high quality and nurturing experiences before your five is bone showing I'll say very, very deep research on that, where actually, if you have a healthy environment between zero and five, or on flip side adverse child experiences, you're actually baking a diagram in your body of whether you're going to have diabetes or heart disease. And so, think about the potential to the state of Vermont when you go upstream, and you support those kids and healthy development. We save so much heart rate and so many dollars, and it turns around these death spirals that we're in on financing in the state. And then the final piece that is very hard to quantify as demographics. We all know if we had a larger and if we had more people under my, it would make our property taxes go down, it would make our schools, you know, not overbuilt infrastructure. It would make all of our income taxes go down. And so we all know we need to attract humans, but also young families, you know, particularly very few things do that and that's why that's for kids focuses on childcare because very few things have that potential. I just want to just ask you, what about paying a parent stay home. Great question.   So first of all, a lot of people sort of asking about what about Scandinavia. And like, well there's so many things that they do that we don't do that we have to be realistic about where we are and what's best practice and what's realistic for Vermont sure. Sure, you could do that. But it doesn't have any economic multiplier effect in any of these ways. I will say, that's the very best thing to do. That question was asked at Senate Finance yesterday afternoon. That's fine about what if we just paid him take paid a parent to stay home, and she said kind of off handed. I've run those numbers they don't work. This is the what's the best thing for kids. So there's very good research showing that a human who has a fundamental understanding of child development is a very important factor in the healthy development of a child and this is why we must focus on the early education workforce as the key here. And compensation is the thing that makes those market incentives go in the right direction, but also socializing and being around other children. That's the best thing for the children, because this is a fair question. I just want to know. But I would say, this is also, yes, plus a healthy dose of unity and freedom center the state that we live in. The idea is not compulsory. I think it's accessible, equitably accessible system for these reasons of child development, but not compulsory because child development is varied. And that's why the mix delivery is not compulsory but is there is there an argument out there. And we love, you know, this is this committee is a big fan of evidence. Good, you know, we don't like to throw things and sort of hit totally see you totally see you. And the question is, you know, we do ask ourselves all the time. What is the very best thing for kids is if you know, and that's that's the research. Yeah, we can take a little more. Yes. I just feel so unrealistic. I don't know that people have really done a deep dive. Some things are unrealistic. I think from our perspective, the really important thing is for families to have options and so many families there is no option. They are staying home because they don't have access to childcare. And so we want families to be able to make that choice for themselves. Like, do you know why? I would say, purely anecdotally, when my son was born, almost 15 years ago, right, we got every single waiting list, didn't find childcare until he was almost two. Yeah, in spite of the fact that we are well, like well connected people. He was almost two before we found childcare. You know, master's degree, not an early childhood development though, so he's fine. But there were definitely when we finally found childcare, you know, and he was like socialized and did all the things when you're finally entered childcare when he was almost two it was instantaneous. And the difference that I saw in him, just being able to socialize with other children, having and the things that I learned as a parent from an early childhood educators in his, in his classroom do it was like, oh geez, thank God he's still alive and okay, you know, we did all right. But I, it's part of why I'm so passionate about this work is just seeing the impact on our, our child and our family of having access to that was like night and day for us, not to mention the fact that I could go back to work. It's not like our lives were so different. But it was, you know, that's my like anecdotal story of why we need to have this available to every family of course we're never going to force a family to like go to work and put their kid in childcare but the fact that so many families don't even have that option right now is And I love to highlight just two things I'm so, so, so patient. This idea of this two generation approach, it's something that's often lost, but the idea that you're a better parent, when you have access to experts and support like an early educator you often find an early educator is the person in a parents of young child's who is their most trusted advisor and there so you have this two generation impact on quality and then access to sort of early intervention and targeted services that again support that child's healthy development and early so that you can really do some deep early intervention. I don't know. This is, I guess it is an evidence based that it is and bill. You repeatedly asked the question chair. Yeah, what is best for kids and I mean I can speak to have being on a school board and being plugged in to a certain extent. I think one of the bad realities that came out of COVID for me was that there are a lot of kids who are not better off at home. True. In fact, it was the exact opposite. The poverty, the addiction, among other things that we have in our country in our state do not make always for a home environment so I think that question is kind of a loaded one it's fairly complex. And another thing well hold on. I would say it's an important question we want to leave everybody here is right that's a good question you get the idea. Yeah, I completely agree that COVID being home for some case was really really hard, but there are also situations that you know, a parent wants to be home should this be should the United States say, hey that child, if they want to be home, the parent should get out or something like that. Yeah, absolutely I just want to see that but I just I also wanted to point out that from my perspective in terms of outcomes being home is not always the best. Totally. And then I did this is sort of a, this might be way out there and I know I'm probably generalizing big time but when you when you it's hard also I think to look at the United States versus let's say Scandinavia or even Europe. When it comes to staying home for mom or dad for a year or two years I mean in Canada you can stay home for five years and be guaranteed a position not necessarily the same one at the same salary. But yeah, but I do think again this is just me trying to be like a social scientist I do think Americans have a lot of ways our identity comes way more from our work than a lot of other countries, where your identity is more tied to family community, you just work less you have more vacation. And I do think Americans tend to connect their identity to work more. And so I do think that's a little bit of that is a different layout. Well, but I also wanted to say, I, you know, I've crossed these guys are getting used to me crying, we have tested money but your description of the importance of the first two years, it's just really hard to argue with that it's so incredibly important and will be will pay dividends in so many ways over time. Yeah, I really appreciate that. I was just saying that you have other witnesses waiting because I just saw them in the waiting room but I, we haven't talked at all about universal pre K, which is a part of our birth to five system right now and I think there will be many more conversations to come. During the course of this legislative session but that is a really important component of our birth to five system right now and so that's the system that that the state established years ago for through act 166 right for universal pre K so we offer 10 hours a week for all three and four schools in the state to have access to this universal pre kindergarten program right now about 60% a little over 60% I think of kids in Vermont actually receive that service at a private partner program so a childcare program in the community that partners with the school district to offer that. And that has been a really key component of our early childhood education system. It has helped improve the quality of early childhood education across the board for young children. And it has helped provide a stable source of revenue for childcare programs that are partnering with the state on this program, where we know that the sort of the economics of running a childcare business are incredibly fraught and it doesn't not really sustainable this has been a really sustainable source of funding for those programs which has been really key and has offered kids access. And what is so strict to a 10 hour a week universal pre K program is that 10 hours a week is not actually sufficient for most working parents right so that's why I think so many kids in the state are receiving those 10 hours a week at a childcare program where they're actually there for like the full day full year right, not just a school day but their parents work day all year round and they're receiving high quality early childhood education for the entire time that they're in that year. And then 10 hours a week of their of their time that that program is paid for through the Education Fund, you know, there's a universal pre K program. So practically speaking for a lot of kids that's what it doesn't.  It's actually the whole day supported programs to be able to provide high quality early childhood education to kids the whole time that they're there. And then that's sort of writing a stable source of funding through the state.  That's what I believe the bill. Okay, yes, and I think, yeah, much more conversation to come around. Yeah, what's now the best practice that our current mixed delivery system is what it's known because you can get through either through a private partner program or through a school district. Yeah, has been very successful in that regard I think and very hard to say it was. Yeah, I would just want to lean in on a couple things from what Sarah said it enough. Our next witness, I think. Okay, you're good. We use the term childcare just to be very clear because that's what the world, when they hear they understand it. It is zero to five. We always say high quality childcare high quality affordable childcare. It's more of a semantics thing. I want to be very, very clear to piggyback about Sarah said it is high quality early child education. We really understand what the definition of that is as a community, and it is. It starts with the human in the room the preparation and support of that human in the room and as you see, it's just something really historic has happened in Vermont. We are leading the nation as usually by your little lot with advancing as a profession, the early childhood educators in Vermont these folks in childcare zero to five and all these different types of settings have come together. And with working with these national experts have agreed upon the term early childhood educators. I think there was no term right is it a provider is a daycare worker is it a childcare person right like no it's an early educator and that's a consensus. And then what does it mean to be a profession, an early educator A B and C with commensurate training commensurate professionals a real professional like we've seen nursing undergo, you know, over the years and of course to your point about what happens in those early development years, we know exactly what it is, and we know what it takes to nurture that. We know what the whole foundation of the early childhood education profession is based on these folks then so we sort of use the words a little interchangeably but just to be clear pre case a very specific program is there saying the specific dollars target in a specific way with a few more requirements but really the vision that we promote is a high quality setting that has these regulations and the standards that promote that high quality because children don't turn it on and off 10 hours here 10 hours there or even like you know at home or in the classroom learning constantly, they are doing this, you know, this crucial development in all settings and that's why, and then you will hear things about best practice like reducing transitions from children very important, a four year old is more developmentally, you know, probably similar to a three year old and a five year old these are the sort of things you will likely hear, you know, as you take in all the evidence from experts in the coming weeks and days so I just really thank you for digging deep in this because it is and the last thing I'll just say is, you know, that famous, to your point about the work, that famous saying, why do you go to the banks, because that's where the money is, you know, well, that's, and to your early point to why this is the most crucial time that the question was, so where are they. And it's just a change in our society over time that we have not really come to terms with many, many more than the vast majority of them just aren't a whole many wonders because the women woman has chosen to work. There's only single parent, they must work to make ends meet whatever the case maybe it is what is happening. And this is the most crucial time of the development so if you want to have that impact. This is the setting the platform to do it and that's why we're focusing on it. We don't have a bill. We do. You guys will get it only if it ends up and you guys are done with it will like, oh, get it in here. But our real jurisdiction legally is the precinct. We'll be interested in knowing things like, okay, what's training like, you know, early childhood education has that connect to then arriving kindergarten first grade that kind of thing. Great. Yeah, we'll be eager to have those conversations should you get there here. Yeah, it's been a really important piece of the puzzle in birth to five in Vermont, it's been we are one of the foremost leaders in the nation in terms of delivering universal pre K, especially because we include three year olds in that system. And in terms of our enrollment numbers to were higher than almost every state. Does it seem to say your ideal right now would be to allow a parent to okay, if there's a pre K at the local school that works for Emma her great but if they're in like my district we also have a pretty well known early childhood center. High quality. It started at Bennington college college said you just can't sustain this. Yeah, it's okay. Okay, move it off campus. And it is incredible. So that is not that's still, that's an important part of the landscape that you all see. National best practice is mixed delivery system for a myriad of reasons that I think you know I hope you all continue to sort of prod into, you know, from that evidence perspective from, you know, minimizing transitions full day and full year, not just school day and school year. And by the way, this has been the system in Vermont for some time now and you know districts choose to do that partnership with their private providers for a variety of reasons there there's beautiful discussions of partnerships in Vermont for many many years that go in both directions you know from the school and those private partners. One more thing and just because this is the education committee so we are definitely focused on birth to five right the childcare financial assistance program supports young children, but it actually supports school age children as well so the childcare financial assistance program is the program is also supporting school age children to access after school and summer camp programs. The expansion that's in the bill that will be in health and welfare is leaving from birth to age 13 up to 13, you can qualify for childcare financial assistance. So, I think they're thinking about expanding that universe. And so the there's the there's the after school component as well. You know, that's an interest to this committee. And, and importantly, when we talk about next delivery, there isn't a robust after school system for four year olds. So if we're thinking about school day school year for four year olds that is a really is a that's authority issue for working families about how that would work. And I know the Quebec did this correct. And there's something out there may be essentially. What happened. So I would love to see that since this committee is in the head. And I'd love to see that research also. You know, I don't hear what country is doing it but paying parents. I'm curious to know more about that. Yeah, we should do a little research. We have a best practices document that looks at what Quebec did but some other states are doing right now that we'd be happy to share with you all for the birth of five space. And just the summary so you reading that you see it, you know how in the back of your mind basically Quebec did what we are suggesting which is push public funds to support the compensation of early child and educators and they had women in the workforce numbers through the roof and they had gross provincial product go through the roof as well. And so that's interesting they started just by expanding affordability for families without paying attention to the quality of that system or the compensation for early childhood educators and it did not work until they invested further to make sure that they were actually compensating early childhood and giving kids access to quality childcare and now that's when they've seen the return. So we'd love to learn from their mistake. Yeah, and challenging up there because you know, generally it's I mean parts of your body will buy and how do you bring extra people into workforce from other provinces and they saw that that would be. Yeah, I haven't really dug into S 56 yet I'm sorry I will. We've had like 24 hours. I know just didn't happen yesterday. There is there any talk of after school or summer in the bill. Well the CC FAP expansion that's in the bill applied to kids up to age 13 so it would be anybody eligible. The school age population tends to be much smaller portion of that fewer hours a week that you need so it's not like the expenses and that isn't increased that much by school age children, but it's a really key resource for families. Thanks. Yeah, very interesting. I really appreciate the time and happy to follow up and in any way. Yeah, yeah. Thank you for your time. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, we certainly believe in it. That's so important. In the case right. A lot of us have a lot more than just me actually had twins to so and let's go kids so we sort of take the let's go. We're trying to turn your own. Yeah, something's in the water so we're trying to turn the demographics around for you a single hand over here. When I work for a care agency, there was so many families with twins. Yeah, that's honestly, I have a lot of friends who went soon as they had twins had to leave the workforce because they couldn't afford childcare. It took me 11 months to find childcare and I've been working in this space and no program. You know, and then I lost it with going up and so it's a personal and professional journey. Thank you very much. I really want to thank you. Committee, any thoughts before we move to Jennifer Sanderson on anything final thoughts. Oh, so many thoughts so many, but you're a sponsor right. Yes. Okay, that's 56. Yes. Yeah. I have, you know, good knowledge of it but I'm not every single little. No, I was just curious. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, great. Okay. Ms. Samuelson, thanks for joining us. Great to be back. Thank you very much. So we thought we'd just spend about 10 or 15 minutes on last time you were here we talked a little bit about the state board, what it does. But I'm curious to know about its needs, you know, what is it that we have this sort of divided system. You know, agency of education, Secretary of Education and then we've got this group. You know the state board there is a bill in the house I know I've heard of this that kind of merges the two, which if we get it over here will have you in or if somebody else puts it on the senate side will have you will have you into talk about it. So tell us a little bit about your needs on the state board, in terms of just general support so that would be helpful for us to hear, and this is the back of our minds as we're talking with appropriations and as we're doing some of our work. All right. Well, and so thank you it's good to see everybody again and I really appreciate being invited back to be with you this afternoon. You know I was trying to think of what I could prepare and I and maybe this is sort of the essence of the issue, because I'm a little bit stuck on what to prepare but I have some data that I thought would be helpful to share with you. We haven't had a state board meeting since this request came so again I'm really speaking as an individual I'm not here today on behalf of the full board. I did send out an email to board members sort of soliciting their advice and suggestions, and I've also been communicating with Maureen and Suzanne at the agency of Ed, as well as Emily Simmons Donna Russo Savage and Jamie Crabill who are sort of the attorney attorneys in the state board's life. Just to get a sense of what they're doing on our behalf and how much they're spending, you know, on average.  So I can go through that with you guys as well. So I when I think about where we become reliant on the agency of education it really breaks down into administrative support and legal support. The administrative support, we would not be able to do what we do without Maureen and Suzanne, helping us and you know not only do they schedule the meetings, you know, assist with recording the meetings. They do all of the minutes for monthly state board meetings, and I'll just point out that means that they are not doing the minutes for subcommittee meetings that has fallen back to be a state board responsibility. But it sounds like a lot of their time is also spent posting and distributing documents and making sure that those documents comply with accessibility requirements. So, much like everything that I'm going to say the amount of time that they're spending really depends on what's going on in the state board. So, but Maureen Gatis thought that it's, you know, roughly 10 to 12 hours per month that they're spending on our behalf. And then the more sub meetings we have, even though they're not doing the minutes that will indicate their time because they're, you know, sending out the doodle polls, setting up the meetings, getting the meeting started. So that definitely takes their time. And we've got a few subcommittees that are, you know, live and quite active at this point. So that's the first bucket. The second bucket would be. Emily Simmons. We rely on her for legal guidance. You know when we did the 2200 series updates last year. She was our primary contact that was really helping us in our subcommittee meetings and then, you know, before the full board. And she estimated for me that when she was doing that work for the board she was spending about 20 hours a week assisting us.  So we've retained outside council, and he's only just started so I don't, I don't have good information for you about how much time he's spending. But you know, one, one. You hired your own outside council to support the board's work to help us with the EQS. So, you know, that need was identified, I think back in October. You know, we put it out to bid through the Attorney General's office, and it took about three months from the time that we identified this need for independent legal services until we were actually able to get someone doing the work that, you know, we had identified as needing help. Okay. So we have Donna Russo Savage and again her time varies wildly from, you know, a couple of hours a week or, you know, when she was helping us with withdrawals. Last year, she said it was, you know, almost a full time job. So, again, it really depends and I think what's really hard to is it's hard to anticipate where these issues are going to arise. I mean, sometimes we can anticipate it. And the General Assembly is like hey you need to enact rules that comply with this new act. We know it's coming when it comes I mean as I sit here today I couldn't tell you what's going to be put on our plate in a few months. So it makes it a little bit hard to anticipate but I think you know we exist at the behest of the General Assembly and so we're here to fulfill that mission. And, you know, going back to the attorneys the last attorney that we rely upon is Jamie Crabill from the Attorney General's office, and she estimates that she spends about four to five hours a week. But again, it depends on what we have that we're working on and you know for instance she said this week's been more. We're working all of that up. You know on the low end it looks like it's, you know maybe two for a 2025 hours combined administrative and legal 25 hours a week at the high end it would be over 40. So I think you know this kind of goes back to the roles and responsibilities and trying to figure out what roles are going to remain State Board responsibility what roles are going to remain AOE responsibility and then how do we best prepare for that and allow ourselves to do the work that needs to be done. Yeah, and like I said we're just trying to figure out a little bit those roles and responsibilities costs, you know what's, what's being pulled from the agency when they might be able to be working on other things and sort of vice versa, and, and don't want to, you know hamstring anybody in terms of getting their best work done for kids in schools. And it might be part of a general AOE assessment. And I think some of this work has been done in the past, but it might be just worth digging that up and trying to understand it. And then, have you said anything, would you remind me what did each of you get paid with like a 100 bucks or something. Well, yeah so interestingly I pulled the dieting statute this morning it's 32 VSA section 1010. And I'll be honest I didn't even realize that the statute has been amended and will go. The updates will become effective this July 1. So currently, board members are receiving $50 per diem for any monthly meeting or subcommittee meeting or special and anything beyond that gets billed at $6 and 50 cents an hour. I can tell you, not a single board member is, you know, completing time sheets for $6 and 50 cents an hour. It's just, you know, I think we all have other jobs in addition to this and I think people have decided that, you know, it's easy to keep track of the meetings that we're doing. It's consistent with what other payment is for boards like this, boards and commissions, it might not, you know, we can talk to go box and find out but Well, little bit of a problem. Yeah. Well, and I'll be honest when I was in Montpelier last week I did not realize that other boards do make more than that but I will say that the statute lists out the State Board of Education along with, you know, 19 other boards and commissions. And so then again, like, I don't know what level of work we do compared to the human services board or the emergency board, you know, there's, you know, other boards that are listed here but you know what I do know is that the State Board has been charged with rulemaking and quasi-judicial appeals and, you know, just thinking through like a lot of the work that we've done, you know, we oversaw a lot of the withdrawals, you know, you know, Ripton and Lincoln last year. So, I mean, I feel like we are doing work that requires a fair level of sophistication and, you know, frankly, time to try to get it right. And a lot of the rules that we're looking at now have not only state constitutional implications but US constitutional implications. So again, I think we all feel very responsible for, you know, giving it our absolute best so that we get it right. Hayden. I'm just going to ask him. Yeah. I'm going to email the agency of education and see if there is, have we missed something around? Was there at any time in the past five years, a study and assessment of the State Board of Education with regard to compensation. Staff support that kind of thing. You got it. Okay, thanks. Great. Any questions for Ms. Sanderson? And we can check with the, we can check with the administration also it'd be interesting to sort of see Kendall probably would be the best person for us to reach out to, you know, just looking at all the boards and commissions out there, wildlife court, et cetera, everybody sort of consistent, you know, and I get different levels of responsibility for each one. Sure. So, you know, I apologize, I just didn't have time to prepare anything before we met today but if you would like I'm happy to, you know, I crunched some numbers this morning and I'm happy to share that with you if you think it would be helpful. If there's anything that you have time to just email along to Hayden, that would be great if you share it with all of us if you think it's, it's relevant and important to this conversation and in the meantime, we'll see what Hayden pulls from the administration and from the agency of education. Okay, we can talk about this a little bit and maybe add it to the education bill. Terrific. Okay. Thank you, Jennifer. All right, thank you so much. It was really good to see everybody. Bye. Bye. Committee any questions before we take a little break and we get pension. Welcome back to standard education Thursday, February 2. We're going to just spend about 20 minutes talking about pensions where things stand right now with teacher pensions educators pensions that would also include sports staff, and Mr. Thank you for this. As well as if you don't mind some follow up on the letter that you wrote and some of your concerns that you have going forward. Sure. All right, thank you for the record Jeff van from Vermont and EA. Thank you for having me. Also, if you were missed I didn't say Hayden is home. Sick I understand you shouldn't be working should be sick and getting well get well. See you tomorrow. Yeah. So I'll start with a bit of history. I submitted written documents have copies if you need it, but this is not my written submission. I have to pass out. Thank you. Just a bit of history here so this plan was established for teachers. Yeah, teacher retirement system visitors. I'll go I'll use that name. I'm not here. Visitors was established in 1947 to state teacher system. Yeah, created then started then. And I started running and 20 21 years ago. The plan was pretty well established then in 2010, there were changes made to the plan. Eventually they were asking teachers to work a little bit longer, pay a little bit more. And at the end of the road there was a slightly enhanced healthcare benefit retirement. So work longer, pay more. And at the end of the road if you met certain benchmarks, you got an enhanced. 2010. So they went from teachers then went from contributing 3.54% of their salary to 5% in 2010 into, and then I'm getting there when you say 5% of their salary went into the VISTA system. Right. It's not a defiant. So he's right. It's not a real 403 B or 403 B or 401ks a defined benefit plan and what that means is, it's a contributory plan. They contribute teachers do as do employers and the state. They all three contribute to the system. So you have a defined benefit based on your years of service, based on your salary, a couple other actuarial factors that go into it, and you get a defined benefit pension until your, you pass away. Now you can reserve some of that pension for your spouses, it's called the joint survivor amount. How much can you, how much percentage budget. You can, there are gradations and I, how much the plane allows it's like a corporate model. Yeah, the surviving spells may under 40%. I guess he's 6040 but but the system does allow you to take more and get less for your spouse. There are adjustments and gradations on that. So it's not definite and you make choices when you retire and they're irrevocable choices. You can't change them. Oh, I now have contracted some great illness. I'm going to change it and reserve more for my spouse when I pass away. You can't do that. And that's, it's a, you know, it's a risk for both at that point. You make decisions as you do when you retire and you have to live with them. And the other two systems that, that I'll talk about to our beamers Vermont municipal employees retirement system beamers is for the support staff, pair educators, clerical administrative folks, anybody who's not a licensed teacher working in a school who works for a school district that elects to participate in beamers is not mandatory visitors is all licensed teachers in the state of Vermont must participate and do participate in visitors. District has the keys to that kingdom in terms of, well, most often, yes, the answer is yes. Okay, and a lot of things that happens at the collective bargaining table where you bargain with your employer this course have to, and they might might say that we want our employees to be in the beamers system so that would be. I wouldn't agree to comment just seems strikes me as a, as a problem that again, this for pair educators, we know that we have very educated pair education, educator, people, 50% of bachelors degrees, which is incredible and great. Seems like we're saying, leaving to certain people, hey, but but we're not going to give you this so it just. I think I understand your what you're saying yeah and, and perhaps the posture on, on, on which you make that statement, and I don't disagree with it, but I will say that our parents and our support staff are not highly compensated. And so it is to also contributory. Yeah. And there are many parents who may not want to participate in retirement system take something out of the check. So, so we're making value judgments all the time. Yeah, as we do. But it's, it's typically happens at the local bargaining table or we agree. This is what we think we want to do. And, and, and lastly, as the center she knows the, there's the state employees retirement system visors, and that to that covers the same police troopers and in that regard so there's that in the beamer system just for quick discussion, two thirds of the employees, the beneficiaries or participants in the beamer system or school based employees. So it does include truck, or excuse me snow pod drivers municipal workers clerks town clerks and those sorts, but the vast majority, two thirds are school based employees. The three boards visters visors and beamers are governed jointly with a board that includes employees. In this case two teachers, retired teacher, the treasurer and two gubernatorial gubernatorial appointments, and the same for these beamers and visors. So they're, there's, they're jointly administered plans, much like they are in the private sector that partly trust are also equally divided, excuse me equally administered plans. So that's that's that's that's how they operate and they systems make decisions as they will be picked. And then the commission investment commission makes the investments and decisions about investments for all three plans, all the state's money. And you might want to check in with the treasurer's office they might they might be able to give you some details about the amount I think it's approaching $10 billion. Maybe I'm off, maybe eight billion, but there's a lot of, I think that's a lot of money, I don't know. And that's by BPAC and Tom Galanca is the, the chair of BPAC. Maybe somebody might want a quick side to this is all jurisdiction of the House, excuse me the Senate government operations committee. They deal with this on more regular basis but it does come up in education as you know, and that's why I'm happy to talk with you about it. So in general history, 2014, there were further changes to the VISTAs system where teachers paid even more. They went from five to 6% in 2014 for new hires. Anybody who was not yet vested prior to it was July one of 2014. And any new hires thereafter also pay 6%. So if you're vested fully by 2014, you stayed at 5%, new hires are at 6%, as well schools now contributed to a portion of the of the plan. And that started in 2014. So schools districts now contribute some where they did not before. Two questions first in the 2014 shift, were there are benefit changes or was it just contributions. I had this note down. The answer has got to be yes we typically thought of the contract between the state and employees and so you change a contract there's got to be mutual consideration on both sides after get the detail of what changed in 2014 for the teachers to satisfy the contract clause issues that might have come up. And I apologize I can look back all these curious if the educators at the time thought that it was kind of an equitable shift or created a sort of I guess I guess it wasn't a contract plane because it was only for new hires I apologize. So prospectively we just changed the contract if you will be prospectively for new teachers, not unusual that time frame right right right. Back on memory back here a little bit but so there were no any benefit enhancements at the time in 2014 is just an increase to unvested and new hires are going forward so trying to show up the plan to make sure there was there well into the future which is our goal we want to make sure teachers have a decent retirement as deserve they deserve. So that's what happened in 2014. And then we got to 2021. There were some concerns with plans, the stability of the plans in the House and Senate we passed a bill to study that there was a pension task force that really dug into the details over starting July 2021 and went in, frankly to January 2022 beyond their goal was to only meet a number of times and in December but they kept going because they were getting close and just tough, tough work and they did a lot of good work and came forward with a proposal that was enacted last spring. And so, and that changed the rates as you'll see on page to teacher the teacher rates going forward. And so we're in year one right now. So year two is next year starting July one. And then year three is supposed to go go back to what the parties all thought was necessary which is a marginal rate, sort of like your income tax, based on how much you may pay based on that dollar for dollar increments. We went to the band rates and figures one in two for administrative purposes in the year. And then years one and two only was a little bit easier to administer for schools their, their software systems couldn't go to a marginal system, marginal rate system. So we all figured this out in the cafeteria last year as we did, as often as the case and came up with a banded rates that they could live with that we could live with in the short term. The Treasurer has some comments about going back to the marginal rates as agreed to last spring. And you might want to speak with the treasurer about that. And that's, you know, that's something that's on his mind. And we'll figure that out as we will. A couple of demographics there on going back to page one. Teachers are active teachers at 10387 retirees at 10295. That's just demonstrates it's a more mature plan. It's been around since 1947. You'll see beamers is a newer plan where you have a lot more active folks, then you do retired folks, and that's a less mature plan is how I would describe it. It's active versus active teachers as an active versus tire. So teachers maybe might work for a few years, have some credit in the system, and then might teachers are about 77% women, and a lot of them take off time for childcare, which is great. It does. It does really just reflect I think a lot of gender inequality in pension systems because we get space in the years of service. And if one takes off a couple years to raise a family, it does negatively affect them at the end of retirement years and same versus security. So I think these are, you know, that's just a demonstration of that, I would say. And then you'll see that the average annual teacher pension is like 22,500. And for beamers it's even less 11 to so that we're not talking about significant pensions here on average. We're talking about people who probably have had to supplement their income in some other ways along the way.  So it's, it's after how many years. So the average. This is the average your for years it was 30 years of service then went up to 35 to get the full health benefits so the retirement office in the treasurer's office probably would have that demographic number for you. I think Colin Robinson may have sent you the valuation from last spring in 2022 was for the 222 valuation and I could pull that up. But in there I'm assuming there's a demographic number about the average years of service. A teacher. The average teacher and system has I don't know it is. So, when we talk about pensions we're not talking about significant numbers here. And just want to keep that in mind. Other post-employment benefits OPEBs health care. OPEBs other other post employment benefits. It's often versus OPEBs. And it is typically health care in retirement. It's also dental for teachers. It's a one time option a one time option only when a teacher retires, he or she is entitled to the elected dental option. They contribute some towards it. And same for health care although health care you can go in and out a little bit reasons for that. And unlike dental. Many teachers do take the health care benefit, not all. It's an election on their part for whatever reason they may not need it. The spouse may have a coverage or something like that. And then of course when you get the social Medicare becomes a med stop plan. Medicare supplement plan. So it just covers the holes if you will, for Medicare. And that's for beamers, the school supports that it's an incredibly modest monthly stipend for those school please who retired, who have coverage elsewhere. There is no health care benefit provided by the state. It's a, I think it's about a $50 monthly reimbursement arrangement to those folks who have elected on their own to get health coverage elsewhere. And if you've priced out health care you can work lately $50 not a long way towards covering anything. So that's a rather modest benefit that we'd like to see enhanced. It's important to enhance it. And we'll see what what goes in that regard. So, and finally, I think it's important for you to note that. And as I said earlier, it's meant for men from all school, public school employees, teachers, excuse me, who are licensed, and it's also the four historic academies also participate. Their licensed teachers also participate be immersed, or excuse me visitors. They're unlicensed teachers do not. So it's just a license system. And again, the banding rates you'll see. We're talking ranges. This year from six to 6.65 next year will go from 6.10 to 7.25. And in theory, the marginal rates will go up all the way to 9% for those more than $100,000. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Does a teacher immediately mean as far as do they start earning credit at year one and just start earning credit year one. And it's a one year credit is 175 days. And a teaching. And then there's a it's a two part answer to your question. Teachers vested five years for their pension. It's due to the arrangement that was struck in 2010. In order to get the health benefit, you have to work 15 years to get 60%. 10, I'm sorry, and maybe often it's been more than a decade off to go back, but there is a 60 70, and then it caps out at 80 at 20 years for the health care benefit. So that's. And does it top out at a period of service like 3035 years where the benefits, you know, it's flat or they can they just keep contributing until they doors are mandatory retirement. There is a cap out if you will. There is no mandatory retirement. My father wants off for 37 years. And there is a limit to the multiplier. Of course your salary typically goes up as you, as you continue to work. And so that helps in that regard but there is no increase in the multiplier. I like this. I think so. So constituents have asked me 50 times the last 24 hours about something about CPI promise. Okay, what is also living adjustment cola. So starting in 1981. I don't know what was happening then I was not doing this work else. Teachers were set and did receive 50% of the cost of living adjust or the CPI consumer price index of the Northeast CPI and as it's known, I think it is CPI and and the consumer price index. So, for years that went on and then you got 50% of the CPI. So I think that's one of the most in statute in documents from the retirement office. Just you know from any a jointly with the Treasurer's office retirement office puts on retirement sessions for members and teachers to come and learn about their retirement. It's one of the most productive things we do it for money. A lot of people go through it everybody teachers are, are, you know, they start thinking as we all do as you age a little bit like, Oh, what am I going to return. What is my retirement. And they start coming to these retirement sessions. They're done with for money, as well as the Treasurer's office. And we've done those jointly for years and they go around the state and they typically after school there might be some light incidents and and a couple hours of meeting with folks and trying to figure out, you know, help them figure out what they want to do when they grow up. Yes, yes. And so that's a, it's been a great partnership with the Treasurer's office for many many years. And in those documents the white clear that teachers get 50% of the CPI. In 2016, there was concern over deflation teachers get 50% of the CPI up to a cap of 5%. And in the deal that was reached last spring that cap is lowered to 4%. It used to be five and one, you get no less than one. And now it's four and zero. Those are the new caps and minimum and max. In 2016, concern that the five was not an issue, the one was that issue deflation. And so the Treasurer came in, then Treasurer, Beth Pierce came in and said, Hey, we need to protect teachers from a negative CPI, if you will. And so they changed the language to protect teachers from a negative CPI, a negative cold. And everybody agreed there was testimony in a house and Senate go box. That's what they were designed to do. That's all they're trying to do there's no, no discussion whatsoever about an inflationary time, all about deflation. Another modest conversation. I think Colin we went back and listen to the page Colin did and I think he said he clocked it out at 90 seconds of conversation about the teacher system in this issue. So we're not talking about a healthy robust discussion, but it was clear from the Treasurer's presentation and the deputy Treasurer's presentation, Michael Dawson, that they were there to protect teachers from a negative CPI. That's all they were trying to do and everybody agreed. We did agree with that. That's what we wanted to protect. The language was redrafted in 2016. And here we are in a time of inflation. Last year, the CPI Northeast CPI was 7.6%. Half of that would be 3.8. We thought, okay, it's 3.8 is under the cap. Retired teachers would get 3.8 costs of living adjustment. The new interpretation that didn't come about until I guess, September, October of 2022 was that way the language actually says, you only get 50% so long as it's under the cap. Once the CPI exceeds the cap, 7.6 is over five or four for prospectively for teachers, but let's call it five for sake of discussion here today, you lower to the cap, and then cut it in half to 2.5, 50% of the cap if you will. It's not how anybody understood it. In fact, it's not how the retirement offices documents in the jointly done retirement sessions reflected anything. And moreover, from 2016 until the most recent valuation in November of 2022, the Treasurer's Office asked the state's actuaries Segal to cost out the COLA using the 50% of the CPI. When you hear from constituents that talk about this issue, what they're talking about is retired teachers are getting 1.3 and it is less than what they were promised and what they thought the law promised. So that delta for the average teacher at 22,000 is about $300 a year. I mean, that's just an average obviously not, you know, I don't think everybody's getting a 22552, but that's the average we're talking about here. And people, you know, obviously are not happy about that. And I think that it's, you know, I've heard discussion about, oh, well this will add to the cost of the unfunded liability. What it says there's no cost at all, no cost whatsoever. This is found money. Right, the valuations prior to November 22, all said, if you send CPI, this is money that rightfully I would submit to you, belongs in the pocket of retired teachers, they had it along that's what they were promised. We need to figure this out. And so that's what I think the discussion is all about. And so that's why I think you may be hearing from folks. I'm curious if the NEA has articulated this scenario to the members. And if, if so, or if not, any idea what may have triggered this very recent concern about, about, yeah, we did inform our members recently about it and that's probably why you're hearing from them. And of course, the active folks in the classroom so it'll, it'll affect them it's not fixed mistake. It really is a mistake, I would say to you, that mistake is not fixed retired, excuse me, active teachers who eventually retire. We'll get 50% of something less than what they thought they were going to do. So I don't know, you know, depending what the CPI is all that fun stuff. There's a lot of words in the statute that are now being interpreted to mean that the cap essentially is 2.5 or 2.0 for perspective for future retirees. I think we could have done this a whole lot more simply, if the cap is 2.5, we could have done it in probably 25 words we didn't need 200 to do that. And so I think it clearly it's a mistake that we need to address. You may also hear from retired teachers because they're Vermont retired educators Association is also talking about it. I'm aware of that. And these are folks who worked a long time thought they were promised 50% of the CPI, and now are finding out their first checks with the reduced amount of you will the 2.5 is supposed to 318 went out January 31. So they're, you know, it, they, the state looks at the CPI last summer, and they did that. And then it's prospectively into January and that's so they just started receiving, I guess, their first retirement checks that are negatively affected. Okay, that may be why. Yes, probably 100% of our teachers right because it affects them right now. Current teachers are not yet negatively affected, but will be some point in the future. So is there a line between the NEA and retired teachers Association, I mean, do you know you represent the active teachers. I don't represent the money doesn't represent. We have about 1500 retired teachers.  You know, this is why we're here. pension funding. I mean, I only know if I kind of in the window have you but stability of the pension fund. Well, we want it. We're concerned about it too we want to make sure that's here today as well as tomorrow. Maybe it's not your, you know, I'm not sure what you mean by funding it. I hear about it's pension and so if you have a position or. Well, the actuaries every year come up with the numbers called the actuarially determined employer contribution, which is the state contribution in this context, a deck. And the state for the last several years has been putting in exactly what the actuaries asked of the state to put in. So that's good. I feel it was struck last year put in a little bit extra to make up for 26 prior to the last two years of 2021, 26 out of 30 years before 20 2008, maybe seven or eight. The state did not put in what the actuaries asked and they request it so there was a long period of time starting a late 7980. The state did shortchange or did not put in with the actuaries recommended. It does have a, you know, put in, you know, all of your mortgage payment if you will, think of it that way. The principal is going to build up. And that's what happened so there's the state has been since for more than decade and eight is now putting in what the actuaries have asked for that's great, but you still have to make up for some of the past. If you will. And that's what last year's deal started us on an effort towards doing so. So that we think that's good we want the plan to be on good financial footing, as I say for today as well for tomorrow. Thank you. We may continue this conversation.  He's very helpful. Great start we might have the treasure or somebody from his staff in to pull some of this carpet. I appreciate this. Thank you. Thanks, feel free to stick around. Yeah. Don has any questions. Please join us at the table. Absolutely, absolutely. And I'm realizing so the executive director of the National Alliance of Mental Health, Mental Illness in Vermont asked you to join us, which is true. Yes. So if you would be so kind as to introduce yourself, tell us a little bit about yourself, but it was like to run from this Vermont, and then jump into your priorities that would be great. Before we do so let's just quickly just go around the table so Hi, I'm not a shame from domestic representing. Nice to meet you. Hi, I'm routine rock you look from Burlington representing to the central. Nice to meet you. I can't be in banking County. Dave weeks representing Rotten County from Brock. Also nice to meet you and thank you so much for having me. So a little bit about myself so my name is alexina I'm a business owner. I'm also miss Vermont, and I'm a mental health advocate I got involved with Nami Vermont as a speaker talking to students about mental health in high schools and middle schools. I struggled with my own mental health for me it felt really important to come back to the state that I struggled to be able to tell the story of my own lived experiences, as well as share resources and updated resources, because as a teen for so many years I struggled in silence and in total denial of what I was going through because I had never heard anyone openly share their own experiences. So we've come a long way about de stigmatizing mental health we sell so so much more ago and I'm going to share a little bit about my experiences from visiting schools with Nami, but also I started a nonprofit that focuses on interactive programs that I've taken all over the state of Vermont talked to hundreds of students and parents about mental health and about how to take care of our minds just like you do our bodies. I'm from K through 12 so you get a range of students in different topics that I bring up to be able to hopefully slowly de stigmatize mental health and the more I enter schools the more I realized how much more work there needs to be done. So I'm going to talk a little bit about those experiences as well as my own lived experiences to hopefully give you some insight into my findings and my own experiences. So, so I was born in Bennington Vermont and I spent all of my dumb adult life and young adult life in Vermont I studied interior architecture at Cornell University with a minor and health hospitality and design, which is a fancy word for where the intersections between hospitality and healthcare can see and kind of learn from one another. And I wrote my honor thesis on the study and design of behavioral health facilities. So you'll see mental health is something that has been kind of in my life, pretty much all points. And during the pandemic, I saw such a huge increase in mental health struggles within schools within my own as a graduate student. There was just so much more talk about struggling. And especially in our school systems, I think that's where the biggest focus is. And so I took a project that started in graduate school and I took it a little too seriously and started a nonprofit around the feel better way. So that's the nonprofit that I spoke about that offers support to Vermont or students struggling with mental health issues. So I created a book that is kind of an interactive program to be able to present hundreds of students all over Vermont. The book itself is written for like little me of what I needed when I was younger, explaining what goes on in our brains and how can mental health affect me versus my friend next to me, how can I support my friends if they're struggling how do I know if I'm struggling, all of these unanswered questions that I had that I wish someone had told me about. And I try to use a unique perspective of using illustrations to be able to showcase feelings and emotions in a way that doesn't feel either ordinary or not seeing yourself, whether that's race color identity within pictures and ideations of people who are struggling. And so, through this I'd like to s