Senator Sears being here. I'll just talk a bit about the legislative trustees. Because if he does come in, I would like to start with that. Does he text? Do you know? He does. I can text him. Okay. Great. Welcome everybody. This is Senate Education June 9th, and we are continuing remote hearings for the COVID emergency. I appreciate everyone being able to join us, especially around the emergency funding for school air quality systems. Unfortunately, for various reasons, that topic will be the last we do today. So it may be a bit before we're able to get to you. Before that, we have two pieces of business we have to deal with. The first concerns, S-224. Corey, sorry, I didn't get you a heads up that we were going to delay by day. But you'll have to- All right, I was ready for a masterful performance. I don't know if it can be repeated. You'll be ready twice as ready tomorrow. So one of the things Debbie and I noticed was that Senator Sears had put in an amendment, which is a perennial request that he puts in and bill form usually, which is to eliminate legislative trustees all together from UVM and I believe state colleges, although it might be just UVM. But as I was saying before, the House and Senate Education Committees have always opposed that. And the thinking usually runs that one of the things you get with legislative trustees is that they are immediately responsive to other legislators. And I have found that to be the case when I've had some issues in the past with the UVM Board of Trustees, for instance, the out-of-state trustees, I find impossible to contact. I have never successfully contacted an out-of-state UVM trustee and I think that there are organizational reasons for that, cultural reasons for that. But whenever I need to speak to the UVM trustees, I find the legislative trustees immediately accessible. They respond in the State House within minutes if I ask them for something. And if you, here's Senator Sears now. And if you want them to testify, they're willing to do that as well. So welcome, Senator Sears. I was prefacing the discussion of UVM legislative trustees. Oh, you're still muted. Jeannie, do you have Senator Sears muted on your end? I don't know the estimate on that.  I got two meetings going on at the same time. Okay. So now I'm with you. Okay, thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me. Yeah, we noticed the amendment in the calendar. When I was in appropriations, I wasn't sure if you were actually gonna post or an amendment or whether or not you might decide to hold off. But when I saw it there, I thought it was best if we talked about it in committee before the floor. Well, unless the committee supports the amendment, I will draw it. But I did wanna make the point that I've made about 12 times previously. Well, you have the floor. So if you wanna walk us through or just generally talk about it. Well, I think it's just a general idea that we would end our having UVM and state colleges trustees be members of the legislature. I've always felt that somewhat of a conflict of interest. You're sitting on, in my case, sitting on the Appropriations Committee dealing with the appropriations or you're sitting on another committee dealing with issues regarding contracts, whatever. And so I find it to be somewhat of a conflict that you're, what is your first goal in terms as a legislator? But I also think that we take away from the colleges and the university's ability to have their own members of the board. And so that's the reason for the amendment. And I've longed, it's unfortunate because if we were providing the level of support that other states do, then perhaps we would deserve that number of legislators. But we're not surprised at providing anywhere near the level of support given our number of legislators on the boards. Yeah. Well, I take the point about serving two masters. And it's a larger issue as you know, in the legislature, we have people, for instance, who sit on the VSAC board who are also legislators who decide on the money and who sit on other boards for organizations large and small around the state. But questions for Senator Sears about the intent of the amendment or if you're unsure of your position and you wanna talk out a piece of it with him, questions from the committee. Senator Ingram. Yes, thank you. I, well, I won't tip my hand, but well, maybe I will. I'm actually inclined to agree with this, in fact. But I wonder what you would do with the governor's, the governor gets to appoint some too, right? Does this affect, it doesn't, doesn't affect the governor. No, it doesn't affect the governor. I'm not sure the governor deserves to have that many appointees. I don't disagree. Senator Hardy. Well, first I was just wondering, I was trying to find the amendment and I'm wondering, did it get sent to the committee? No, it's in the calendar, Ruth. Okay, I don't think I've seen. It's on page 5316. Okay, but just so I can ask Senator Sears, it's just removing the. UEM and state colleges members of the legislature from the board of trustees. Well, like Senator Ingram, I don't think I disagree necessarily, although I guess I would want a larger conversation about what we think the makeup of the boards should be and how many, who would we replace them with. So I would be happy to join you next session in a bill that looks at this more comprehensively. I would hesitate a little bit to support an amendment without having a fuller discussion and having more testimony at this point, but I think it's definitely worth talking about more and looking into more. I appreciate that. More than, that would be exciting to join you on a bill. I would love that. And assuming we all get reelected. And I share Senator Hardy's concerns about however one feels about the issue. We do have a set of legislative trustees now. I think it would be exceedingly odd to vote this out without ever having heard from any of them and tell them that in essence, there's a vote of no confidence in the position that they now hold. So, whether I'm chairing the committee next time or not, I would be prepared to support a conversation about it at that time. I think the general concept of what's happening with the trustee, with the VSC trustees, the UVM trustees, we brought forward this gender piece this time, but it's really the leading edge of a larger conversation about how the trustees are working and should we revisit, so. I agree. Other questions for Senator Sears? So, just so we're clear, I will, you know, given the comments from Senator Hardy and Senator Ingram and yourself, Senator Bruce, I will withdraw the amendment. I'll let Senator Bloomer, Senator Secretary Bloomer know. Okay, and, you know, I'm happy to commit to that publicly on the floor when you withdraw the amendment that we'll take a deeper look next time around. It's fine. Okay. Thank you very much. Enjoy your Zoom meeting. See you soon. See you soon. Bye now. Okay, well, so now we'll return to the adult learning piece. And I guess that would commence with Tom Longstreath. Might be a good place to start. Welcome, Mr. Longstreath. If you could just give us a quick sketch of the problem that I believe it's youth build. Yeah, yes. Thanks so much for inviting myself and the Executive Director of Resource and Andrew Jope, who's our Youth Build Program Director. You know, we had prepared some thoughts approximately two minutes each. Is that too much time or should we try to shorten that? That is less time than I had planned to give you. I just want to let the committee know on our documents piece on the website, you'll find a little short piece of language, draft 1.1 on the high school completion program. And that's what we'll be speaking to. Okay, please continue, Mr. Longstreath. Great, so we'll each take about two minutes. I'm sorry, we didn't have a whole lot of time to prepare but I'll try to keep this brief and then can answer any questions. Resource, as some of you may know, is a nonprofit organization that has a three-part mission of job skill training, poverty relief and environmental stewardship. Angrily we enroll about 300 trainees, both youth and adults in one of our job training programs. We have sites in Burlington, Williston, Hyde Park in Barrie. And we also run some other training programs in other parts of the state through collaboration. So we've had some programs in Brattleboro, Springfield, Rutland, Middlebury, Hardwick, St. Albans in the past at different times. As you can imagine, some of these training programs are on hold right now but our youth build program has just restarted. Youth build serves 16 to 24 year olds who've dropped out of high school are all economically disadvantaged. We train them in construction skills and we get them an NCCER certification, a bunch of other certifications, lead safety, OSHA 10 certification. Really it's designed to help them get into jobs. About half of them go on to construction and you may know that construction is one of those fields where employers are just desperate to hire good skilled workers. Another half of the youth build students go on to other careers. All the students are also trying to get their high school education. So they've dropped out of school but are trying to get that degree. We've worked through the high school completion program since it was passed by the legislature and that's become I think flexible. I mean, I think that got replaced with flexible pathways legislation more recently. The resource with the student the adult ed providers, which in Burlington is Vermont Adult Learning and then Barry is Central Vermont Adult Basic Ed work with the sending high schools to develop an individualized graduation plan. The challenge we've had, I'm gonna let Andrew speak to but the youth build students are among the 6.7 million young adults who are 16 to 24 who are neither in school nor working. And these are the students who fall through the cracks of the traditional educational system and need a path to complete their education and build their future. Resource youth build gives these young people who've left school an opportunity to build better futures and empower them through service. They really feel they become leaders by serving others. So not only are they helping themselves but they're really helping others and that's one of the things that really motivates them to succeed to stick with the education, which is rigorous. But it's that hands on applied learning through service that really makes it successful. We've had a challenge recently with the high school completion program which we wanna tell you about and Andrew Jove knows it best so I'm gonna turn it over to him but overall the law has been incredibly successful for most of our students. So we are hopeful that with the small tweaks we can again make it work for these disadvantaged students. So if I can turn it over to Andrew he will tell you about the challenge and the remedy that we're proposing and then we can both answer any questions that you may have. Sounds great. Okay, thanks Tom and thank you for having us here today. I guess I would say first what we're bringing to you today is very much like a ground level perspective on how these rules are affecting our program and our students. I think there are better people to speak about kind of the big statewide perspective as to what this looks like. We're really just saying to you today this is how this is affecting our students and Tom described who our students are. They're young people who dropped out of high school who 100% of them are coming from low income households and Chittenden County where we're seeing a lot of students come in from the immigrant population. And perhaps I'll describe to you how high school completion used to work and used to match up with our students and our program and what we've seen over the last three years. So for those of you who remember Act 176 back in, I think it was 2006, the legislation that created the high school completion program. We for many years really were at the forefront of adopting that and working closely with our partners and the adult ed agencies and really how we used to do things as a student drops out of Burlington High School or Spalding. They come to us through an adult ed provider either Vermont Adult Learning or a CDADE in Barrie. They come to do youth build program much if not all of the learning opportunities that they're accessing at youth build also match up to line items on their graduation plan. Their individualized graduation plan under high school completion that then translates into credit that they go back to their high school with. High school says, yes, they verify the outcomes and the student walks away with a diploma. And that is how we did things for maybe 11 years. In the last three years what we've seen come out of the agency of education are standardized testing requirements to qualify for the high school completion program on the front end and to complete it on the back end. And I think I understand where this is coming from. I think there's a desire to ensure quality and rigor as flexible pathways pushes more learning opportunities beyond the four walls of a high school. I'm sympathetic to the intent to make sure that there is quality and rigor in those learning opportunities. But what we're finding is that, we're dealing with some of the lowest skilled most vulnerable students in the state of Vermont. And they can't qualify. They just don't, these are singular standardized testing measures that we're making them, it's a hoop that we're making them jump through that's really closing off what we thought was a great avenue towards a high school credential that used to exist. And I would further contend that every other aspect of the secondary education system in the state of Vermont is moving away from things like this, right? Like standardized tests, credits, seat time, flexible pathways, the intent and the letter of law is to move away from that. And why are we holding on to standardized testing measures for students who drop out of high school to access educational services when everybody else in the system has the privilege of not jumping through those hoops in order to access educational services? So- Mr. Joe. Yeah. If I could just clarify. So you said, I believe that it used to work that they would complete the line items on their individualized graduation plan, go back to their sending high school and then you said those things would be verified and then they would get their diploma. How did verification used to work? Well, I mean, again, so from our perspective, it could like we do a lot with certifications, right? So if a student is, we offer this big comprehensive certification called the NCCER in construction and that includes construction math and blueprints and drawings. So if a student is say gonna derive a math credit from completing construction math and construction drawings under the NCCER, we can, that's a very easy way to verify the completion of the certificate. They have to pass a written test and there's also a formative assessment where they have to demonstrate to one of our instructors that they can use math skills to solve complex problems on a construction site or something like that. So we, the service provider that the high school and the adult aid agency are putting trust in to provide these services have ways to measure skill, you know, skill gains is really what we're talking about. And so that's how we demonstrate that, you know, we're actually doing what we say we're doing. Okay, thank you. Yeah. So in other words, you're not asking that these students avoid ultimate testing. It's just you want a test that is designed and shaped around the work that they've trained to do rather than a standardized test, which is, you know, pitched at some mythical student and kind of addressing general knowledge across the board. Yeah, I mean, I'm suggesting that there should not be a testing requirement to enter this system or if we want to insist on some kind of quality assessment to determine a student's readiness to enter this system, we should really be thinking a lot broader than just a singular standardized test. And could we not, you know, right? Like under flexible pathways, we're placing a lot of trust in our school districts, you know, as they move towards proficiency based graduation requirements, we're placing a lot of trust in them to design quality rigorous measures that they will assess of their students to determine proficiency in whatever skill, you know, transferable skills and content areas that they deem appropriate could not high school completion work the same way where the high school, the student, the adult ed provider and the service provider such as us determine what is our, how do we measure proficiency and skill and then trust us to do it. And on the back end, we can demonstrate and the student can demonstrate that they have demonstrated proficiency. If I could then to just add something, I think there's really two problems with the current standardized testing requirement, maybe three, I'll add a third. One is that you have to hit a test requirement in order to get enrolled, which is really excluding those with the highest barriers and the greatest need. And that just seems crazy to me that our system of education for high school dropouts for people who have struggled in our educational system that in order to qualify for educational programming of the sort that youth build can offer, you have to take a three different standardized tests and you have to score above a certain level just to get in.  I think that the educational system should be telling us, look, if you're going to serve these students, you've got to serve both the ones with high barriers and the easy ones. But in fact, what they're telling us is we can't even serve, we can't enroll the ones with the highest need. And I think that that's wrong. So the second problem is, as Andrew was describing, is that a standardized test is inconsistent with the way that high schools now are using proficiency measures to demonstrate competency in the learning. And so, you know, we feel like there's better measures to show that we're actually helping the student make progress and that they're ready to graduate. The third problem is if you look at some of the questions on the standardized testing that are used, I don't think they connect to what employers are demanding, what the educational system thinks, you know, what academics think is important. What any of us would say is this critical to being a good citizen in Vermont? And I think if we looked at some of these questions and I don't know if there's the ability to share my screen, but I appeared last year with in front of the House Education Committee with Hal Cohen, and he shared some of the sample questions that aren't actually from the test, but they're from the preparation material on these standardized tests. And if I have this open on my screen, if there's an ability to share that, otherwise I can provide this material to the committee separately. Phil, I think you're still muted. Yeah, you're muted. Providing it separately would be better, I think. Great. If you permit me, I mean, if you'd be interested, I'll read one of the questions, just for context. I'll jump over to this. So this is from a TABE 1112 standardized test. Which sentence contains a modal auxiliary question? A, he can do the best magic tricks. B, I bake cookies for the big event. C, the book is due five days from now. D, we have to pick up our tickets at the box office. I have a master's degree and a bachelor's degree, both, and I have no idea what the right answer is on this, and I don't think it's impacted my ability to serve resource and serve the community. So I just, I think that there's, I think that the NCCR test that teaches construction skills and helps demonstrate whether a construction contractor should hire you is a much better measure of skills and knowledge, and that's the type of proficiency standards that we should be looking to support these students with. I agree. Can I ask, have you gentlemen seen the language that we have up on our website from Jim Demeray? If you go to the committee's webpage, it's listed under documents and handouts. I have not seen that. I mean, I think we may have spoken with Jim a little bit about it on a phone call. All right, if you'll allow me, it's short enough that I can read from it. It's very simple. It says, a person who seeks to enroll in the high school completion program under 16VSA 943, shall not be required to pass a standardized test as a conditional enrollment if either. One, the person is from an economically deprived background, which means a person who resides with a family unit receiving nutrition benefits as determined by the secretary of education in accordance with dot, dot, dot, or English is not the person's primary language. And then it says this section shall be repealed on July 1, 2023. So that's a very simple change, although there may be reasons to do it or not do it, but would that take care of the issues you're talking about? I think that that would be an effective way, certainly on the enrollment side. I didn't, I didn't, I might have to hear it again to understand whether it would solve the issue of allow high schools as part of the, degree granting? Degree granting, whether proficiency standards that are could be, you know, essentially the high school completion, completion could be consistent with the high school standards. Yeah. I think that if this carve-out could be done for both of those, that would be helpful. And I appreciate the chance that, you know, there's a sunset to this so that we can all evaluate, has this had any negative unintended effects? And if so, there would be a chance to correct it. And if not, then broader legislation could be enacted at that point. Well, you've talked about how, I don't wanna misstate what you said, but I thought I heard one of you say that the individualized graduation plan was carried out point by point by your organization. Then they go back to the high school and the high school verifies that that plan has been completed. Would it, to speak to your point, would it be possible that we could say that, you know, a certified provider of adult learning services has completed the individualized education plan and the sending school has verified and there's no need for a standardized test? Is that what you're seeking? Andrew, do you wanna respond to that one or?  Yes. Right? Yeah, I mean, I think the proficient, the proficiencies should be defined and it should be determined whether or not they are met as a collaboration between the sending school, the adult and provider, the student and the service provider. Okay. I guess that's the simplest way I can state it. And by proficiencies, you mean you're offering certifications. So those certifications certify that the person is proficient in various skills and areas. Yeah, correct. The sending high school has a proficiency and we'll stick with math, right? Like is able to use math to manage personal finances. Let's say that they have, that is a proficiency that Burlington High School has. And so as part of our, and so as part of our curriculum, they're taking a consumer math and personal finance class. So we show that to the adult and provider and the sending high school, and they say, yes, that would satisfy the proficiency. I'm sure they're gonna ask us how will you measure that? How will you measure proficiency?  They take a test and there's a form of assessment where they have to keep a budget for a month or something of that site and have that verified by an instructor. And so like that determination of the high school then says, okay, yeah, that passes muster with us. That meets the proficiency. Demonstrate to that, demonstrate that to us at the end of the road. And then we do. Okay. So I guess my question would be at what point in the game does the high school, so when they give you the individualized graduation plan, do they define the proficiencies then and then verify those proficiencies on the back end? Well, I mean, right now most of, and again, we haven't been working within the context of the high school completion program for awhile now. So I haven't seen an individualized graduation plan in a while, but they're still very much operating and unlike the credit system, right? So individual graduation plans, again, I haven't seen one in over a year now, but they still like, you know, they're still like, oh, this student needs one science credit and two math credits to graduate from high school. And so they're not really talking about proficiencies and my sense is that we'll get there and I fully support that we should get there. But to my knowledge, that's not what it looks like right now. Okay, well, the language that Jim Demere has developed is clearly limited to incoming students being freed under certain circumstances from the need for a standardized test. From what you're saying, it sounds as though maybe we should limit our efforts right now to that with the idea that gets the students into the program and it allows more time for the proficiency conversation to take place. Anything else the two of you would like to add? We do have Jess to Carolus with us now and I believe she's gonna respond. Welcome, Jess, have you had a chance to look at Jim Demere's language? I have. Okay, great. Anything else the two of you would like to add Mr. Job or Mr. Root? No, I don't think so. I mean, like I said, we would be delighted to see proficiency-based graduation requirements map on to the high school completion program. We think it's a great program. We've seen what it can do. We'd love to start providing services under the gang. Yep, okay, fair enough. Someone needs to mute who has a blender or something in their background. Okay, it looks like everybody's muted except for Jess to Carolus and me, so. Welcome. Okay, so I'm not sure how much of that testimony you heard, Mr. Carolus, but the language should clarify what we're talking about the problem being standardized testing to enter into the high school completion program and then a growing population of Vermonters who find that particular kind of testing challenging and can't get in for that reason. Sure, so yeah, I caught just the tail end, but this has been an ongoing conversation since I've been at the agency. So I think I can fill in the blanks. For the record, I'm just a Carolus. I'm division director at the agency of education. Thanks for having me here today. I will try not to speak fast. I'm trying to get to another meeting, but feel free to say slow down. So I think there's just a couple bullet points that I'd wanna address. One, an AEL student, an adult educational literacy student of which the high school completion program is managed through the adult educational literacy system, has no prohibition on developing and working toward and earning a high school diploma as part of the system. There is no prohibition based on their standardized assessment in working towards that goal if that's a goal that they identify. It is a requirement of our state and federal grant agreements that AEL providers engage in standardized assessments. This is in accordance with federal law. If there was no high school completion program at all and students entered into AEL and their goal was to earn either a GED or a diploma, there would be no restriction on them doing that. So I just wanna establish that. All AEL students, adult basic education students, adult secondary education students, students who choose to engage in a goal of earning their high school diploma through the high school completion program appropriation, all students get a PLP, a personalized learning plan. That is also a requirement of the grant agreements which are assurance documents and agreements that providers will engage within the requirements of the law. Federal law does require the use of the national reporting system and does require the use of a standardized assessment and an assessment policy that's approved by the federal government by USDOE. Federal funds are predicated on the state's ability to assure that we will engage in those requirements as laid out under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. It has impacts if we do not meet our performance targets and if we were to get to the point where we were performing so poorly, it would not only have impacts on federal funds coming into the state, it would also impact the governor's discretionary fund, which means that Viola in which there are multiple agencies who are core partners under Viola, everyone would know that it was because of AELs failure to actually engage in the required activity of the federal program, which is what would impact the governor's discretionary fund. If I could just ask a clarifying question. Sure. Is the requirement that they be tested upon entry and that entry be conditioned on the testing? Or is it just that once they're in the program, they need to be assessed in a standardized way? So there is a requirement that all individuals in the adult education and literacy system are assessed and there's a multitude of reasons, which I will tell you right now why we would do that. One is it's part of an accountability system. So just like ESSA, the Every Student Succeeds Act, there is a requirement that we speak to how we are performing as a state. Is the state doing right by learners? And in this case, and in the adult education and literacy system, hands down our most vulnerable learners, right? So this is how- And I do understand, I guess my question is very specific. Does it require that they be tested upon entry and that entry be conditioned on the results of their test? Or could we allow people in without standardized testing and then test them as they move through the program? So I would separate two pieces. And I take your point and I want to answer this very specific question. So one is because AEL providers manage the high school completion program. Any student coming into the AEL system is assessed. And the purpose of doing that is to establish a skill level and design an educational plan to get them to the goal where they wanna go. You don't want people thumbing it. You don't want just subjective testing. You wanna have a standardized metric statewide in which you can say, this is the reading level. This is the writing level. This is the mathematical level so that you are designing an educational program that will get learners to where they wanna go. All of them. We do this in the K-12 system. We have universal screening assessments, right? We have standardized assessments. We have local comprehensive assessment systems. This is not inconsistent with everything that we do. The issue at play is that people are talking about an appropriation. There is $4.5 million of state and federal grants outside of the high school completion program that go to our providers. And that is built in that they must deliver a high quality education, develop a personalized learning plan, and assess for progress and design educational programs to get students to their goals. And these are folks who have barriers to employment, most likely because of economic disadvantage, right? Which is part of this draft legislation. You cannot design an educational program. You cannot hold people accountable and you cannot see how people progress unless you have a metric by which you can set a baseline and see where they're going. This does not deprive the learner in any way in working to the goal, including having a personalized learning plan that says, this is how I'm gonna meet proficiency-based graduation requirements at this assigned high school. No, but we do have to assess them. And if we don't assess them, we can't report them and we cannot measure progress. I think you're muted. Let me just interject. So the question is really, are students held out of the program because of results on a standardized test? No. Okay, I hear, that's what I hear you saying. And I'll tell you what happens that the AEL providers cannot draw down specific funds or get reimbursements based on a particular score. So they already have these funds. And these are district funds when we're talking about high school completion program, of which we are the stewards of. So what happens is they are making progress. A student is working towards it. But what you have is you have a desire to get additional funds. And that is the deprivation, right? This is coming from a desire for additional funds. And I would feel far more comfortable if there was an explicit request to say, we as an AEL system need additional funds as opposed to writing into legislation for the most vulnerable people that we will not hold providers to high instructional standards. We will not evaluate their effectiveness. We will not engage in standardized assessments which research has identified that particularly for black and brown students and for economically disadvantaged students that the one thing that you can rely on is that if you have a standardized assessment that is standardized based, that standards-based that you have a common metric and you are not evaluating on subjective elements. So literally for the most vulnerable people in our system which is a huge portion of them, we would literally be saying that we want no insight, no data, right? Which is a huge critique of racist, embiggeted systems by which we can evaluate the providers. Now add to resource youth build which is a program that's overseen by Department of Labor is not an HSEP provider. Yes, historically, Andrew, I appreciate that you have identified that you guys elected not to participate and work with AEL providers the last couple of years to design coherent systems by which students could both engage in resource youth build and also work towards high school completion. We have worked with you on several occasions. We have met with Department of Labor and you to talk about how you could redesign your programs so that students who are also in high school completion program which is the only pathway to earning a high school credential could also participate in resource youth build. This is not an issue about standardized assessments, right? We have pathways. We published on May 14th an avenue by which working with high schools, AEL providers could map and have high schools assert that someone has met proficiency outside of standardized assessments but we still need standardized assessments so that we can hold our system accountable. I have enormous concerns about this draft. Okay, understood. I'm still seeking clarity on the first point which is, and with your permission, Mr. Carolus, I'd like to go back to Mr. Longstreath. We had been talking before about what seemed a barrier to entry. In other words, a standardized test at the beginning and I understood from your testimony that you felt that was holding people out of the program. Is that what you were saying or is Mr. Carolus correct that people now can go in regardless of the results of their standardized test? No, I think that the standardized test is preventing us from enrolling students in the high school completion program. I think that there's a, I mean, the high school, the adult ed system, I think is made up of more than one part. Only one of those parts seems flexible and able to serve youth-built students and that's the high school completion element. The adult basic ed, we have worked with both CVAB and Vermont Adult Learning and have tried to access the learning through those programs so that they would provide the academic side of it and we would provide job site. And it has, it's incomplete, it's not the type of integrated program that we can feel good about. So I do think that this is a barrier to entry and preventing the high school completion. I wanted to think, just to clarify. Okay, sorry. If I could just clarify, I feel like it's very difficult to get an answer to this one thing, which is how does it prevent people from entering the program? Is it that they get a certain score and then they're told you can't enter? What do you mean by it's a barrier to enter? Andrew, why don't, can you answer from our perspective how it works for us because I know that we have tried to work with students, help them prior to enrollment, we've tried to get them so that they could test at a key level to get them into the program. And, but I think Andrew can speak to it more. And I would say too, to, Jess made this point too, that the test score doesn't prevent them from entering the adult education and literacy system, the broad system, right? Like they can still access services at an AEL provider. What it does is it denies them access to the high school completion program, which is a part of that larger system. Their score on the test prohibits- It does not. I don't know how else to say this, but this is patently false. That would be like saying that the adult education and literacy system is comprised of ABE appropriation, ASE appropriation, Gen Fund, Ed Fund, HSCP. You enter a system in which there are multiple pathways to achieving a credential or a goal. The issue is, and I'm happy to share with this committee, once I get off the numerous exchanges, letters, the fact that the first year I entered the agency of education, we have engaged in these conversations. This is the barrier to students, is there has been a lack of transparency when talking to students and onboarding. There has been inflexibility between providers and resource youth build to actually enter into an agreement in which you do design an integrated education and training program in which you think about what is the structure for the learner? What we are proposing is legislation that is to serve programs and to serve adults and not to serve students. If you want flexibility, let's say then that these folks need to sit down and talk about how they will adequately braid funds, adequately braid programs, adequately develop schedules to serve learners. Do not reduce one of the few avenues we have to ensure that the most vulnerable individuals get what they need when they need it. I am not comfortable with suggesting that English learners, 86% in this system are black and brown, they're non-white. That means we're saying it is okay not to have high quality programs, effective instruction for our most vulnerable. Are we really gonna write that into legislation? I don't feel comfortable with that. Okay, understood. So can we, can I just ask you a follow up? So a student at resource youth build goes and takes a standardized assessment at an adult ed provider. You just want them to get assessed. Regardless of the score, if the AEL provider determines that they're appropriate for the high school completion program they can enroll in the high school completion program. There is no enrolling in the high school completion program. There is a plan and a goal to achieve a high school credential and you draw down from the high school completion program funds. And there are so many funds going in that you need to adhere to making sure that if a student requires adult basic education or basic skills instruction, we have numerous students who are reading at the second, third, fourth grade level. We've had numerous students in the resource youth build program who've actually gone backwards in their performance level when it comes to math, when it comes to reading, when it comes to writing. And what we are saying is that you want to design an educational program that will meet the needs of the learners. I like, I don't know how else to say this, but this is a solution looking for a problem. And frankly, the problem is with the adults. Oh, okay. If I could just make a general comment. Zoom has made me want to pull out my hair on numerous instances. It's easy to get worked up in a remote setting. And clearly this is a conversation that's been ongoing and frustrating for both sides. So I would just ask that we keep the temperature low and everybody's here to help students. So with that, Senator Hardy. Thank you, Phil. Yes, I hear the frustration on both sides. I just wanted to make a comment which is that in our educational system as a whole, especially recently, there's a concept of formative assessment and summative assessment. And the formative assessment is what students do so that educators can understand their level where they're at. And this happens with all students from kid on up, probably in preschool too, to try to assess where they are at so that then the teachers understand what kind of educational program is necessary in order to bring that student along up to the standards of the school. And so this is a really common concept in education. And then after a while, they're assessed again to see how they're doing. And then they're assessed again to see if they've made improvements. And then finally, there's a summative assessment to see if they've met the standard. And this is a really common thing. And it seems to me that this would be, that's what's happening here, that there's a formative assessment when a student enters the larger adult education program in order to assess where they're at. What kind of services do they need? What kind of educational program do they need? What kind of pathway do they need to meet the standard so that they can be a productive adult and hopefully get their high school education and hopefully lead to a job? So it seems to me like what's, this is somewhat of a culture clash between the two programs. And I agree with Ms. DeCarolis that we don't wanna have lower standards for these students. We don't want them to not be able to meet the standards, to be a healthy productive adult learner. And I do have real concerns with this now that I understand it better. And I think that we really need to make sure that we are providing an education for these students that is appropriate and meeting their needs. And that includes assessments. And it doesn't mean they are filling in blanks on a page. It means we are figuring out what they need for their educational program. Well said, Mr. Longstreet. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanna make clear that the resource is not at all against testing as in the way you just described Senator Hardy. We support that fully. What I'm concerned with is the use of a standardized test which I believe despite what Jess is telling me that it has, we have not been able to enroll any youth build students. We are not using that tool. We used to have 30 students a year go through that program. That was how we credentialed our students. We have zero now. There's a very big difference. If there's some avenue that Jess can help us understand where we can work with the agency of Ed and the Vermont Adult Learning Center of Vermont Adult Basic Ed, we would be delighted. We would like to braid services. We are not, I mean, so we have, we used to get around over a hundred thousand a year through the high school completion funding. So we have not had that funding for three years now. It may be a problem in the future at the moment we're managing, but our students are being deprived of educational opportunity and the chance to graduate through their sending high school. Right now they can't do that. So we have pursued other avenues to credential the students including a Penn Foster, which we've been talking with agency of Ed about. We are absolutely open to testing, absolutely want to collaborate, work with agency of Ed, work with the Department of Labor. That is in our DNA. And if there's any concern with the quality of the academic program or the quality of the vocational program, we wanna know about it and work to improve that. And this is the, you know, the guess what you've just mentioned about a test student going backwards, that's the first I have heard of that. So, you know, we would welcome feedback. We would want to make improvements. We are committed to our students' success. And the last thing is, you know, I think there's a tremendous amount of research that shows that standardized testing biases has implicit biases that disadvantaged low income students and minority individuals. So there may be a reason to have these tests to evaluate where someone is in terms of different learning. But we have to understand that those tests aren't necessarily the perfect measure of knowledge, especially of knowledge that should open up path.  And that is a problem. Okay, if I could just jump in. I thought I remembered that when this came into my awareness a month ago or a month and a half ago, it seemed to me that it was the backend that providers were concerned about. In other words, someone would move through the program and then they had to perform at a certain level on the standardized test in order for the provider to draw down funds. Is that correct? It is correct that the provider has to perform at a certain level in order to draw down funds. But as I detailed when we spoke, I think it was May 14th, we have worked with them on transitioning to an assessment. We have worked with them on online assessments. We have worked with them on prior approval forms, request to graduate forms. We have actually lowered so that minimally a student has to be reading and writing at the seventh or eighth grade level. These are expectations. We would not go into a classroom, work with a seventh or eighth grader and say, we onboard and we say, okay, you're on level. You're in the seventh grade. And you know what? We'll work with you for a couple of months and then we're gonna graduate you. Sufficient, right? I mean, in this committee, we have had discussions about not just about meeting proficiency, but the importance of exceeding proficiency and creating those opportunities. What we are now talking about in this system is saying that we won't even require that providers ensure that students are at least proficient so that they can engage in the world, have jobs that are sustainable, that they can sustain their families. And these are frequently individuals who have been bypassed by existing systems. So this is the one last avenue. I think just a technical concern I have too about the legislation has written is that at least with the ratio calculation, that would only include 17 and 18 year olds, 16 and 17 year olds as part of that calculation. So we'd also be creating a bias even within the bias by suggesting that in order to provide an avenue or an exemption for economically disadvantaged individuals, it would only be for those individuals who are 16 or 17 years old. Many of our high school completion program students, many of our AEL students are older students who are returning and attempting to earn a credential, reskill, upskill, overcome barriers to employment. Okay, if I could and I feel in a way like I've asked this before and I may have, but the testimony from the providers that we're hearing is that there is a barrier to getting into the high school completion program around the standardized testing. What I hear AOE saying is that there is no barrier, someone to use Senator Hardy's phrase, someone does a formative test and their level is assessed, they're allowed into the program. Tom and Andrew, can you clarify what is the bar that you see? So someone comes, they take their initial test, what is the bar to them getting into the program exactly? Let me ask Andrew to answer that while I have my, while I'm unmuted, I just wanna say, Jess, I just wanna, our program is almost a full year long. So we're not trying to- Actually, if I could limit it to that question for the moment. Andrew, why don't you go ahead and answer that? Yeah. I'm sorry, could Senator Burruth, could you just repeat that please? Yeah, so the question is, there's a difference of opinion it seems about whether someone that you want to send into the high school completion program can take a test, perform at any level, have that level noted, and then move into the program. I hear you saying that that's not the case, if they perform at a low level, they are not allowed into the program. Is that correct? Well, and so I would say this too, is that so a lot, there's an intermediary who's not in this discussion and those are the adult end providers. And the messaging that we receive from them is that you have to take a Tabor-Cassus test, you have to score NRS four or above to qualify for the high school completion program and NRS five or above to complete it on the back end. That is unequivocally the message that we're getting. Okay, let me stop you there. And to go to Mr. Carolus, is that the way you see it? No, the way I see it, and I do want to just say that I'm supposed to be in a meeting with a contractor right now. This is what occurs, is that resource youth build right now is a contractor that AEL providers can choose to work with based on a student's personalized learning plan. Frequently and in the past, the issue has been that resource youth build has recruited students and then after the fact, tried to push them into the high school completion program to make it work. Now, in order for AEL providers to use high school completion program funds to pay resource youth build because resource youth build would like to be compensated for the services that they offer to those 30 students. Could I stop you? They could be working with them right now. They could be working with them right now. Can I just limit you to the question, is the assertion that they have to score an NRS-4 to enter the program correct? No, it's not correct. So they can score at any level. You can score at any level and score at any level to work in a program, work with resource youth build. This is about providers and resource youth build working together in the sandbox and establishing coordinated support and effort. This is all about money. This is not about quality student outcomes. This is all about money. And I do wanna just say, and I don't know if you're a psychobatrician, but standardized assessments, there is also a huge body of research that suggests that in fact standardized assessments are probably one of the best metrics when you're talking about vulnerable populations historically marginalized groups. I'm happy to send testimony that I provided last year to this issue. I'm happy to also send the assessment that the assessment team at the agency did of the tape specifically. I'm happy to send whatever you need. I do need to go to this meeting. I'm surprised that this is coming at the behest of resource youth build and that this is coming, that we are looking at changing legislation for 30 students for an entity that is not even responsible for the administration of the program. Understood, thank you. We're happy to have had the time. I appreciate it. So can I respond to something that was just said, this isn't just, this isn't about money. It's about like low-skilled students who languish in programs with no view of the finish line, right? They do all this work and they see no avenue towards getting a high school credential. That is what we see. Of course the funding cuts hurt us, right? But we've adapted. Okay, Mr. Joke, I just wanna reassure just to careless, be assured we will not pass anything out without inviting you back and taking more testimony. It's clear that AOE is adamant on this point. So don't worry that you will leave the Zoom call and we will pass this out. That's not gonna happen. We hear your objections and we know you have to go. Okay, I appreciate that so much. Have a good day, everyone. Okay. I'm sorry, go ahead, Mr. Joke. No, I just wanted to respond to that. That felt like a bit of a low blow to me. And then just a suggestion again, like I think how Cohen from Vermont Adult Learning would have a much more, again, we're speaking to you as providers on the ground level and letting you know how we view this and how this affects our students. I think Hal would really provide a much more comprehensive view. And as just was saying, it's nuanced, right? Like the adult ed system is nuanced. And I think Hal could provide a better perspective on what this looks like statewide. I appreciate that. And Jeannie, if you're listening, if you could make a note of the name Hal Cohen from Vermont Adult Learning and just make a note that we'd like to hear from him on Thursday if possible. I assume Jeannie heard that, but I haven't heard any. Yes, Senator. Great, thank you. So I would be interested to know if you or people at Vermont Adult Learning have communications from AOE stating that someone is ineligible because of their score. Is that what we're dealing with? That complete a rejection of a student, you know, a piece of paper or an email that says your score is here, you cannot move into the program or is it more amorphous than that? There, so again, that's where Vermont Adult Learning or CVABE, they're the gatekeepers of high school completion. So they would be the ones who would receive. You know, we really don't communicate with AOE about this. We communicate through the adult ed provider. Okay, well, this was on the order of speech language pathologists in terms of energy level. So I hadn't realized there was such a long standing there's a history there back and forth. So, but I'm sorry if you felt that there was a low blow that shouldn't happen and... No, it's fine. She's clearly frustrated. So are we, you know, and I would say this if she was still on the call too, this speaks to part of the problem, right? Like if you're to accept that we're a competent, well-intentioned provider of academic and vocational training services, and this is the perception that we're getting of the high school completion program, I think that speaks to part of the problem too. Fair enough. We do have to move on. This took somewhat longer than I had been thinking, but thank you very much gentlemen. And if there's more you would like to tell us at a later time, we'd be happy to hear it, but I think 430s all the time we have today and we have a number of other witnesses. Thank you so much. If we could get a Zoom invite for, if you have Hal Cohen that might be useful just so we could support this testimony. Fair enough, and we'll do that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. So committee and witnesses, we're moving on to our last topic, which is if you go again to our handouts and documents, you can pull up Senator Perchlick's draft for school indoor air quality emergency grant program. And I will start by saying that I had a conversation with Senator Kitchell, Chair of Appropriations. And we talked about this program. She's very much behind it. And her thinking about our cap and spending is, from what I understand the system has already spent about 12 million in COVID reimbursable expenses. She's thinking about a chunk of 25 million overall. So that would be 12 million already spent and then 13 million to put into this program. So I know that the key parameter is the work has to be done by the very end of December. And so the question generally is, can let's call it $13 million worth of work be completed in that amount of time, understanding that that's not the entire HVAC need for the state which Secretary French put at something like a hundred million if you were to do everything at every district and every school that needed to be done. So if we're thinking about 13 million in emergency repairs to be done in six months, can that be done? Can efficiency Vermont handle that sort of program and help us complete that? Much of it needing to be done by September if schools are in fact gonna open up for even limited in-person instruction. So I'm gonna let Senator Perchlich speak first about what his draft is attempting to do. And then Senator Perchlich, if you wanna feel free to bring in the witnesses to speak to various pieces in the order you think makes sense. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I think given the time they've been the witnesses have been waiting, I think I'd like to just kind of move ahead to them to hear from them. You know, I think the committee is aware of the draft of just the goal of trying to address this issue of the indoor air quality in the schools.  And the state has this CARES Act money that can be spent if it's COVID related and we can spend it before December. So that was the start of this idea and working with a lot of these people that are gonna testify. So they've seen that draft and I think it would be good just to hear their reaction basically to the draft, but also to the questions that you just posed. Senator Baruth, I think I've given them similar questions saying that that's kind of the, one of our questions is we hear that it's 100 million but then I think in the draft we talk of something like five million. So I just would invite the, and I think we could just go in the order that's in our agenda and that would be efficiency Vermont first and Rebecca Foster who's the director of the whole program. And I think with her is Richard Donnelly who's kind of the subject expert and working kind of on the ground in the schools. Great, thank you for the opportunity to be here today for the record again. My name is Rebecca Foster and I'm the director of efficiency Vermont. As background efficiency Vermont is the state's energy efficiency utility. We cover every community in Vermont aside from Burlington which is served by Burlington Electric Department. And to give you a sense of our reach in 2019 we served about 70,000 residential customers and about 9,000 businesses. So every year we're doing a significant number of projects and transactions. We also partner with about 2,500 trade allies including contractors, energy engineers, manufacturers and suppliers and we've been working with schools for about two decades since we were formed. So since the COVID-19 pandemic began the efficiency Vermont team has been focused on three things. Really first doing as much as we can to help Vermonters become more resilient. Secondly continuing to save them money on their energy bills. And third working to help drive economic activity. And part of the reason that we're excited to be here today is that the issue of indoor air quality in schools brings all of those three things together. First on resiliency the initiative would improve the indoor air quality in our schools and take some basic steps to potentially slow the spread of COVID-19 once kids are back in school. Second on energy costs. We know that indoor air quality and energy efficiency can go hand in hand. And some of the ventilation upgrades that schools need that would be covered by this initiative can also help schools save money on future energy bills. And then last in terms of driving economic activity we are aware of a very large contractor community in Vermont that's eager to get back to work. And they would like to be able to complete projects in schools especially this summer while the buildings are vacant. But I do want to say at the outset that in and of itself this initiative can't prevent the introduction or spread of COVID-19 in a school setting. However, having adequate ventilation can be helpful to mitigate that risk and reduce the likelihood of that happening. So it's not a panacea, but I do think it's an important initiative that is worthwhile to pursue. We have reviewed the outline of the proposal and support the goals that it identifies. Given the tight timeline that we have with students hopefully returning to in-person school in just 11 weeks our view is that the initiative can result in really meaningful improvements in indoor air quality and that it can be an important step forward for Vermont schools. But as was just said, it won't cover all COVID-19 preparation needs for schools. It won't ensure that all state schools meet the ventilation standards set by the CDC and ASHRAE. That would be a much larger project requiring a lot more time than we have and a lot more investment than what's being discussed. Having said that, we do believe this is a very important initiative and even though time is not on our side, there is still meaningful work that can be done that can help. So in terms of the budget, that's certainly a policy question that the committee needs to consider. But from the perspective of a program implementer, we believe that an investment on the order of $5 million is both aggressive but achievable. That budget would send a message to the contracting community that this is a priority program that they should work on and pay attention to over the summer. Efficiency Vermont is comfortable that we could run an effective program to disperse that funding before the end of this year, making use of the systems and the relationships that we have in place which I'll talk about in a moment. If the budget were to increase significantly past $5 million, getting to the neighborhood of 13 which the senators just discussed, I'm less confident in our ability to get all of that funding out the door due to potential bottlenecks in the contractor community. So there's a question of how much we can get out the door, how many contractors can be working in different parts of the state over the course of the limited time that we have. So I look forward to hearing from the other witnesses on that question. From a program administrator's perspective though, we are comfortable that we can set up the funding, do the work needed to deploy the program and that the $5 million level is aggressive but achievable. In closing, I just wanted to speak to why Efficiency Vermont is here today as a potential administrator of the initiative. There are really four things I think that the committee should be aware of and to answer that question. First is reach. So with our statewide footprint with staff in nearly every county across the state, we believe that we can get to schools in more rural parts of the state with fewer resources and help them to participate in this initiative very effectively. Secondly is relationships. So as my colleague Richard Donnelly will describe, we have been working with schools for decades. We have strong relationships, not only with the school superintendents and the school facilities managers, but also with the engineers and contractors that are gonna be needed to scope the projects and then complete the upgrades over the course of the next six months. Third, we have systems in place. We have the administrative capabilities already established including project management professionals that can be reassigned to run this initiative. So we can quickly use those resources to develop a project plan, qualified measure list, identify target schools, do the outreach, verify projects are completed and process payments. So having those systems in place, given the timeline that we're talking about, I think is pretty essential to the initiative success. And then lastly, experience. Unfortunately, I have to say efficiency remote has experience ramping up quickly to respond to a crisis. Following Tropical Storm Irene, we geared up to work on mobile home replacements very quickly. Following the 2008 financial crisis, we helped disperse money from the recovery act throughout the state. So we're able to pivot fairly quickly and meet changing needs as they arise. So that's my introduction, efficiency remun's perspective on the bill. We're supportive of the work, would stand ready to support the state in trying to make these improvements in our schools. And now I'd like to turn it to Richard Donnelly, my colleague who's someone who's been tracking these issues for a very long time and working closely with schools throughout the state for over a decade. Thank you, Rebecca. And how's my audio? Very good. Great. So yeah, for the record, my name is Richard Donnelly. I'm a senior manager for emerging technologies and services at Efficiency Vermont. And thank you for inviting us here to testify. I've been with Efficiency Vermont for 11 years now, over 11 years. And during the first 10 years, my focus was on helping serve Vermont schools, public schools, EBT Efficiency Vermont has historically prioritized schools for our program. And the day we've completed upwards of 1,400 projects and over 350 public and private school buildings, resulting somewhere in the neighborhood of $45 million in lifetime savings. So we're fortunate to have a very strong, what I call a very strong K through 12 support team consisting of many experienced energy consultants at Efficiency Vermont, but more importantly, working with key partners like Norm Medkin and Bill Root and Evelyn here, who are here today. Also many others in the engineering and contracting community. And also not to forget about our facility managers. We've spent decades and Norm has spent decades cultivating the knowledge and expertise of our school facility managers. So not only does this team have great and relevant experience, they have really deep knowledge and experience specific to Vermont schools. This is the same team that we can bring together today to put together the practical guidance for schools to reopen. This is also the same team that can help us develop an aggressive plan that helps many schools as possible in the short timeframe. In terms of what actually, what work could actually get done, the work would generally fall into the categories of ventilation, improving ventilation systems, air filtration and also to put in some monitoring around CO2 levels and relative humidity. But within each of those categories, each school would have a slightly different set of needs according to the school's mechanical system design and conditions along with their occupancy and their space use requirements. Many other witnesses can be more articulate on those things but that's essentially the three categories of scope here, ventilation, filtration and monitoring. So given that the time is of the essence, our first step could be to immediately convene these experts to quickly develop the guidance and then equally important to design a simple and easy process for our schools to participate. On that note, equity is also important. Historically, our support for Norm Metkins program at the Vermont Superintendents Association was predicated in part on ensuring that we were able to identify and reach those schools whose facility management resources were thin, those schools that were not taking full advantage of our programs. I believe this should remain as a guiding principle for this particular effort. And on that note, we'll work with the agency of education, the Vermont Principals Association, Vermont Superintendents Association, all of our entire contracting community that has relationships with schools to basically deliver the message to schools and help launch the, what I would call the implementation phase. So with that, I'll pause and see if there's any questions. I do have a question. Wow, what happened to my audio? Okay, can you hear me all right now? Okay, the 13 million versus five million, Rebecca Foster had several times said five million was aggressive but achievable. We're looking frankly to push the envelope to as much as possibly can be done, even if we overshoot by a bit and we can't spend all of the money, I think it's better to have tried and failed to spend it than to just decide not to spend it. So is there a place between five and 13 where we could conceivably land? And maybe the two of you aren't the best to make that assessment or maybe you are, but. Sure, I can respond, this is Rebecca Foster again. Again, I would love to hear more from Norm and others. I think as we did a little bit of estimating about the number of weeks that we have to work with, three weeks possibly in July, four weeks in August, maybe there's some delayed openings so we get a week or two in September including evenings, weekends, same with October, maybe a week of vacation and one week in November and one week in December. The amount of time is certainly a constraint but I think that I agree rather than leaving money on the table, it's better to attempt to get all of those projects out the door. We have done some outreach to the contractor community. Again, I'd love to hear from others on the call about their state of readiness to embrace something like this. What we're hearing is that they do have capacity and that pipelines are not full for projects like this. So I think with a larger project size, with some creative program management work and project scoping, a larger number could be feasible but a lot depends on how fast the contractor community can respond and ramp up. And that's something that I don't have all the answers on today but that we can certainly look into. And as I said earlier, we're standing by ready to help in whatever way we can. Okay. Mr. Donnelly. Yeah, I would add that everything that Rebecca said absolutely, plus the trick will be in the design of how we implement this. And to that, and the money becomes an entity, right? This money to move, that's one of the challenges we need to design too. And to have the greater impact across schools. So I think there's some creative ways that a team of folks with diverse perspectives and diverse experience in schools can think of how to organize this as a plan. So I would think that it would motivate that kind of creative thinking. Great. Questions for either Rebecca Foster or Richard Donnelly. I think the two of you are representing Efficiency Vermont and we have no one else from your organization. That's correct. Okay. Questions for Efficiency Vermont before we move on. My only question was your 9.3% that you take to administer the program. Am I correct that that's a mandated amount? It is, that's our federally approved indirect rate. So we need to apply that on every project that we have. How we discussed the project earlier with Senator Perchlich was that we would try and minimize costs to the greatest extent possible and not add any fees or anything on top of that. So the 9.3% I think is something we need to apply if the project does grow beyond the $5 million mark. I would wanna take another look at I believe what's a $75,000 placeholder for labor just to see if that would need to increase at all for the larger project size. I would wanna keep any increase there fairly minimal but just we may need an additional labor capacity to run the program and that would be at cost. Got it. And then in terms of our agenda, at least as we originally had it together, we would go to Evelyn Haberman, Killian. I know I didn't say that. That's okay. Proper stress, but if you'd like to introduce yourself and tell us who you represent and then join the conversation as you see fit. Okay, thank you. Yeah, my name is Evelyn Haberman, Killian. And I work for CX Associates. It is an engineering firm in Burlington and we do building commissioning, recommissioning, retro commissioning and energy analyses for commercial and institutional buildings. I've been working in this field for more than 20 years. Our firm has 14 engineers that have also been working in this field, the company originated in 1994. So I have personally been involved in the retro commissioning program that efficiency Vermont has. And I've been in a large number of schools in addition to commercial and industrial buildings. And retro commissioning is pretty much what we are talking about here is looking at the existing heating ventilation and air conditioning HVAC systems and seeing how they operate at the moment and what is needed to get them to operate in the way that they were designed and then as efficient as possible. So we do a lot with looking at the units themselves to make sure that dampers are opening and valves are opening and closing when they need to and also on the control side that they are programmed to operate as efficiently as possible. We have worked in this retro commissioning program with efficiency Vermont very successfully where we have three phases to the project where we'll come in and we'll do an assessment. And that assessment is in the neighborhood of $4,000 to $5,000 per building. Independent of, so I'm thinking specifically of schools it's independent of the size of the schools. And that assessment is then used to develop the measures that need to be implemented and then of course there's the implementation phase. That's been a really successful program as far as we've seen and it's implemented a lot of renovations to systems. What we've seen in schools is that they have not been funded for quite a while and the baseline from which we are starting at the moment is not one of a modern ventilation system. And so we have to be aware that we are really trying in a short period of time to get the systems to be in good working order to then implement increased ventilation and increased filtration components. So we just need to be aware that it's going to take some effort to make sure that everything is operating the way that it should as a baseline. We agree with Rebecca's assessment that the market of implementers, so that contractors, whether it's mechanical contractors, retrocommissioning contractors like ourselves, controls contractors or test and balance contractors are all looking for work at the moment. And so there is definitely the capability. I am concerned about the test and balance side just maybe that's too much specifics but there are not many contractors in Vermont that do testing of airflow to determine if we have adequate ventilation. But I think that there's sufficient commissioning and mechanical contractors to really work on making sure that the systems are in operating order. And I think that they, from what I've seen and I've worked in the entire state, there are contractors spread out throughout the entire state that are able to jump in and a lot of these schools have worked with mechanical contractors already. So I think as far as the startup, it would not be a momentous piece of work that would take much time. I also have worked with efficiency Vermont and I've actually worked for efficiency Vermont. I know that they have the contacts with the schools and with a lot of the contractors that I do think that they are the entity that we can leverage here to get things moving very quickly. So I'm very optimistic that there's the capability and the will on the part of the market to make sure that this gets prioritized to make it happen as quickly as possible so that we can get kids back in school, in person as quickly as possible. Great, thank you so much, Mr. Root. If we could hear from you now and then we'll have questions after you've finished for both of you, if there aren't, or you're still muted. Yeah, still muted. There, I thought that was controlled by somebody else. Thank you, I'm Bill Root from GWR Engineering. I'm a mechanical design engineer by profession. Been doing schoolwork in the state for over 30 years, worked on schools in both the design capacity, implementation, commissioning, and even did a clerk of the works job at the Hyde Park School recently. The condition of the state of the schools throughout the state is quite varied from brand new schools with operating systems that are quite complicated to, you know, the backroom schools that have a janitor running the entire system. I'm somewhat skeptical with the approach and capacity. And I say that from recent experience. We had two small jobs bid, one at CVU with a small rooftop unit. It's just a simple rooftop unit. General bid to multiple contractors. And we only got three bids. The same at the Heinsberg for a small ventilation unit for a kitchen. Both concerns there were delivery of the equipment and the contractors being busy. I had several contractors respond saying, our summer is full. There are a couple of things going on. The COVID work stoppage, many jobs were postponed or put on hold. Some of their offices were basically closed and their people put on furlough until they get back. So they weren't bidding jobs. So there is a mix out there of people who are looking for work and eager to do the work and then those that already had work on the books that got postponed or held up. And now suddenly they're trying to catch up and meet new deadlines. Plus you have the situation where you can't go with a full crew on these jobs just because of the limitations of the number of workers in the space and things of that nature. So the whole COVID environment for construction industry is somewhat complicated right now. There have been delays with delivery of equipment and supplies also. So those kinds of things are gonna complicate an approach where you would say, hey, I would like to get equipment. You have delivery times and all that are involved. Plus in the process you have to identify what those needs are. So that's gonna take time, which pushes you further back. So for a end of December deadline, that's gonna be really tough for physical equipment. However, that shouldn't discourage or preclude you not moving forward with those type of assessments. You have a situation here where a lot of schools, like I asked a few school facility people, so how are you approaching the fall? And the answer was, well, number one, we didn't even know if kids are coming back. And number two, no one's told us what to do. We have no idea. They're looking for the guidance of what should we do? And I think a focus on what should we do is an important one. You can have an across the board generalization of things that focus on primarily ventilation and the secondarily filtration and air movement within the space. There are a lot of schools out there that have been modified by locals, people that don't understand HVAC or ventilation or proper air quality. So you have spaces that have no ventilation that they're putting students in. You have a lot of systems that are so complicated how about the facility people can't monitor them and or they're not set up to notify them and or they're not paying attention to notifications in the case in Point Hyde Park School that I was overseeing recently looking at some issues up there. It's like, hey, your ventilation system hasn't been on for two weeks. Do you aware of that? They're like, no, this is a brand new school. So those are the complicated issues, but those are things that you can just alert the facility people to. So that awareness is a big push. Telling them or informing them what to do. And I think that's where the efficiency of romance ties to the schools and their name, recognition and outreach. I mean, those kinds of things can be developed and sent to them. I am concerned about this ability to know whether or not a system is actually operating and the push that has been put out by ASHRAE and CDC about filtration, that could actually complicate things. It sounds great to do, but it's a little more complicated than just switching out a filter because it may change things. The key here that I see in all of the recommendations is ventilation. The question is, how do you know it's right and how do you know it's enough? Most of the designs for recent schools probably from the 80s forward have been using direct energy recovery type ventilation systems that have pretty good reliability in getting air from the outside into the space and back out, assuring that they just run is the key. Knowing what their volume is would require a physical measurements being done by the group that would do that kind of measurement. And those are the type of people I'm afraid we may not be able to get enough of to do. But you might be able to draw from out of state sources. The problem I've had on a couple jobs recently is those out of state sources are in places that are also under COVID stress where for example, on one project, the main balancing guy couldn't come to the site because his wife had to deal with another situation and he couldn't leave the house because of that. So those are the complicating issues in the COVID environment that we have to deal with. But they're doable. There are a lot of control and mechanical contractors out there that I think with the proper direction and guidance could be looking at schools to see whether or not they're actually operating. It's almost a maintenance review that I think is the primary focus that would be labor hours, not equipment dollars. So spending five to $13 million in labor hours, I guess I'd have to do some number crunching to see if based on a 40 or $60 an hour rate that some of these guys charge, how many hours is that and how many people is that? Is that physically possible? Because you've got to span out throughout the entire state. I noticed the legislation was indicating for a school to request this. And that kind of concerns me because you've got to make sure the school is aware of it and I'm not sure they are. I also have no idea what's going on with district-wide facility managers and schools and how they're looking at this that may become an awareness situation that EVT can play a big part of as to, hey, if you're, do you know, do you have any idea what's going on and what we can do to help you? So those are some of my thoughts as I look at the legislation and the current situation in the state and schools that I've seen them over the years and from that I can take questions. Very helpful. Questions for either Mr. Root or Ms. Killian? Yeah, Andy. Yeah, this is for, I didn't hear Eveline talk about the dollar amount, you know, the difference between the total need, which I assume you agree is somewhere north of 100 million and what you think we can do, you know, kind of hearing what Bill said too about the availability. Do you have, is that just too hard of a question to try to force you to pick a number? It is a very hard question to answer. I am concerned, the legislation says a cap of 50 cents per square foot per school. I am very concerned about that cost. I think that every school needs an assessment because you can have the same HVAC system but have completely different operating conditions and you really need to be in the school to know what that operating condition is. So I think they all need an assessment which as I mentioned is like $4,000 to $5,000 no matter what size of the school and then to get the building up to a good operating condition, I think. So I wasn't even thinking about replacing equipment. As Bill mentioned, that would really add to the time of the work. I was thinking of changing out control valves and damper actuators and things to get the existing equipment operating and that could probably be done for the 50 cents a square foot but then adding filtration and adding ventilation that I think would be more than the 50 cents a square foot. So I am concerned about that funding. If we're not restricted to the 5 million then we do have the 13 million and we can increase that dollar per square foot. I think that's necessary to get not only the systems operating as they should but now to increase what we're asking of them for the COVID response. Yeah, I agree. Oh, go ahead, Rebecca Foster. I was just gonna jump in with a statement of support for that as well. The more flexibility that can be written into the program in the legislation, the easier it'll be to get the experts together and talk through exactly what will work for a fast paced program that can deploy the funding in the places that it's needed. It might be difficult for this committee in this forum to identify all of the needs and all of the circumstances that exist in the different types of schools around the state. So flexibility in the language would help the eventual program administrator I think get the experts convened to develop something that will really work well. Well, Andy has in the draft, there's a line that says this cap may be modified depending on the total dollar amount appropriated to this initiative. So if we more than double what we thought or double it, maybe we can get rid of that per square foot piece altogether or maybe we double it or whatever you think sounds right, Andy. Other questions for either of our engineers, Evelyn and then Senator Hardy, please, Evelyn. I just wanted to add that one of the huge unknowns is every school is so different. There are schools, there are very, very small schools that haven't been looked at for many, many years who have, as Bill mentioned, a janitor that's responsible for the maintenance of the equipment to new schools that have complete building automation systems and have good ventilation and the equipment is new and what we probably just need to do is tweak. So it's really hard to just put a dollar per square foot to this because we've got an entire spectrum. Yep, Senator Hardy. Yeah, thank you. This is really interesting and helpful. So thank you all of you for your testimony. I have a couple of questions. Rebecca, I'm just curious about the 9.3% administration rate. It sounds like that is federally required for you to add on top of things, which is fine, I get that. But I'm wondering what you use it for. Would that include your cost for efficiency Vermont and would it also include any kind of outreach and sort of educational materials or that kind of thing for schools or would that be on top of it? Sure, so the 9.3% is a kind of a federally approved overhead rate for the organization. So that covers our cost of processing incentives and cutting checks in the finance department and basically all of the overhead functions of the entire organization. And it is something that we need to apply on all of our projects and contracts. And the kind of beauty potentially of having efficiency Vermont work on this is that there are many costs that we think could be appropriately and reasonably kind of combined with efficiency Vermont standard work. So as we're going out to schools on a regular basis to talk about efficiency opportunities, we can be talking about this initiative as well. And as we're kind of looking for the next three years of program activity with schools and kind of working through outreach, we can be combining those engineering hours with the engineering hours to run this particular program. So we think that there'll be a good amount of overlap, but then we recognize that it won't be possible in every case to ensure that a ventilation project comes with energy savings. And for those instances, that's where the placeholder for non-efficiency Vermont labor comes in. So I think in terms of the overall program costs, we haven't done a detailed budget at this point to know how much we're marketing or how much would be outreach. But I think that given the strong relationships we have, I don't expect that a broad marketing campaign or anything expensive is going to be needed. I think that we can probably pick up the phone and in two or three days, get to the heart of the people that we need to contact and make them aware of the opportunity. So I think that that type of expense will be very limited as we just build on those relationships and leverage those to get the word out and the more flexible the programs and more generously incentives, I think the easier it'll be to get participants for this because I guess Bill said, there are so many questions right now about what opening schools will look like, that any guidance and any technical support that we can provide from our team as well as engaging the contractor community, that will be very welcome. And I think we'll see some really good uptake as a result. Okay, that's great to hear. In terms of the guidance, I would definitely recommend that you experts reach out to the agency of education and offer to help them with the guidance because there is a team right now meeting to provide, to create guidance for schools to open in the fall. And given that AOE does not have that expertise in this area because they don't have staff to do it, I think it would be really helpful to get you on that, in that conversation to make sure that schools understand the facility issues that they're gonna need to address and get that guide expertise. I just, on the finance, I would really happy to hear that some of these issues may be tweaking existing systems rather than putting in brand new systems. That's really great. And just making the existing systems work better. That's always a good thing. And I guess as much as I would love to spend the money on schools and I want to spend money on schools, I appreciated, Rebecca, that you offered the 5 million as a realistic amount given the fact that we have to have this money not only appropriated but actually spent by December 30th. So if equipment is not gonna be able to be here and actually purchased, then we would have to take that money back and that is not a good thing to have to do. So maybe 5 million we could inch it up a little bit more but I would be hesitant to put the full 13 million dollars given all the other needs that we have. So I guess I appreciated your caution on the amounts. But thank you all. I was wondering about 8 million. In other words, 12 million we've been told has already been spent that we'll be reimbursing with this piece of legislation, bringing it up to an even 20 million for this particular time. That would add significantly to what we've got but maybe wouldn't be a crazy amount to think that we could. What has the 12 million been spent on, Bill? Do you know? Figure from Dan French in terms of COVID reimbursable COVID reimbursable expenses that we can begin funding with this particular yield bill. So I don't know exactly what he's talking about. He's been speaking with appropriations about it. They just wanna drop it in here for convenience sake but we'll get a breakdown of what it is. Mr. Etkin, I don't wanna skip you and I feel you have enormous expertise in these areas. So address whatever piece of this you like or all of it or... Okay. Well, thanks again for having me. I appreciate it. I think the piece I wanna stress here is how fluid the situation is. There's so much that we don't know about a lot of the elements of what's going on starting with the virus and how it's gonna act and where things will be over that six months until the end of between now and end of December. So in terms of the dollar amount figure and so on, it's unclear how many schools will have students and them come September, which may mean and it may go back and forth somewhat, which may mean that there's some more time to get work done in those buildings. Exactly what the schedules will be. It's something we don't really know yet. So that may mean more opportunity to get more work done to the idea of maybe being able to utilize. Some more funds successfully and appropriately. And who knows whether they're going to extend the CARES Act deadline as well. I have no knowledge of that, of course. I'm just speculating that or just saying there's a lot we don't really know as fluid situation, a lot of things will change. And job number one is to make sure that existing systems are working and functioning. And that's a project in and of itself that doesn't generally require a lot of equipment, end of things as much as the manpower people to do the work. So I don't want to take up, I know we're running against the end of the day here. So I don't want to say too much more than that. I'll be happy to answer questions. One other point that I will like to some of Bill's point was making sure systems are working. Ventilation is a little bit strange in that, if it gets too hot and you know it, but if the ventilation isn't running, you don't. So I think it would be great as part of what the program could be, it would be to get the hand held meters into the hands of facility managers that can easily test for CO2. Chromodioxide is a good indicator of whether ventilation is working correctly. These are relatively inexpensive things. Every facility manager should have them. And as part of this program, it'd be great to get those out to people and show them how to use it and show how they can make sure that all the systems are working the way they should. And also this taking CO2 readings is done in classrooms when they're occupied. It's a good way to show the flag that you're making sure that indoor air quality is being addressed in those schools. And it's, which is a really good thing to make both teachers and students aware of that, that the room's being properly ventilated and so forth. So it's just one point to help deal with the problem that Bill pointed to, which is at times these systems aren't working and they don't know it. So, and I'll leave it at that. Okay, that's a great idea to add in somewhere. Rebecca Wasserman, I know you're non-video at the moment. Hey, there we go. So I am wondering, you've had a chance, I assume, to look at Senator Perchlich's draft. I have, yes. Okay, I'm wondering if you could convert that into legislative language and then having listened to the discussion. For now, let's think about an $8 million figure to put in. We'll have another round of discussion, but that's more than five and less than 13 and maybe doable. So if we could ask you, Rebecca, to draft for us with an eye toward Senator Kitchell is putting together an amendment to the yield bill from appropriations and this would drop into that amendment. So that would be the formal, I don't know how to say it, but that's how it will enter the process. So when you drafted, if you could have that in mind, that it would be coming from appropriations. And then is there anything in the draft that you need answers on before you set about converting it? Yes, so Senator Perchlich had pointed me to the statutory changes in the document that there were a couple of changes that were recommended. The first was related to the bidding requirement on school construction. So I looked into that and the statute says that these bidding requirements, well, I think first of all, is this school also going to be bonding for a portion of this on their own or is it just that this amount of money is paying for exactly what is going to happen at that school?  Okay, so there's no part on the school that they have to figure out a way to bond or make up any additional money. Okay, that was one of my questions. And then if that's the case, then the bidding requirements, there's an exception in statute for emergency repairs. So I guess one of my questions, and this might be for the folks who are more knowledgeable about whether this is considered an emergency repair or whether sort of a more explicit waiver might be necessary. I think it would be hard to find a more explicitly emergency repair because we're in the COVID emergency that the governor declared and the COVID money can only be expended for things covered by the emergency. So if this was something that was budgeted, for instance, before the emergency, we can't use the money. So I would just have language like we've had in the other appropriations we've done so far where it references the emergency and then maybe we're there. Senator Perchley. I just thought if we could also reference that part of statute that allows them to do these repairs emergency just to make it clear that the legislature is saying ahead of time, yeah, these count for that waiver. Yeah. It'd be good. And then did you get the piece about the handheld meters that Normad Kint said? Yes. So I will add that in as an eligible cost under the program. And I hate to say it because I know you're very busy, but what would your timeline be to get a draft and would it be possible to have a draft by Thursday? I was gonna work on it tonight. So I think it would just need to be edited by tomorrow morning. So hopefully sometime tomorrow it would be all done by editing. Perfect. I told Senator Kitchell, we'd try to have something to her by Thursday. So that'll give us time, the committee to distribute it out, take a look at it, everybody can. The second step of this, today we heard from talented professionals and efficiency of Vermont who would theoretically run the program. I do wanna take testimony on Thursday from AOE, Jeff Francis at the superintendents, some other folks on the more traditional side of it just so that we're not running all the way down the road without having dialogue with the people who would actually take advantage of this program. Ruth, did you have a question or a comment? Yeah, I just wanted to ask, I have a superintendent who I was gonna call after this who might be somebody that we could hear from because he may be one of the schools that could take advantage of this quickly. And I can let you know if he's interested in testifying if that would be okay. Perfect. Just hear from a school perspective. Yeah, if he or she is, just give the name to Jeannie and she'll put that down for Thursday. And then Jeannie, would you mind contacting AOE, Jeff Francis and let's say the principles association and also ask them if they have a facilities person from one of the districts who might give us their perspective. And I'll stay on the call for five minutes after Jeannie just to make sure that we get all this. Okay, great, thanks. Okay, anything else from the committee members for any of the witnesses? Okay, I appreciate everybody's waiting through the earlier testimony and witnessing our tedious arguments that we have in the educational field all the time. But thank you so much. I think this is crucial for getting kids back to school and we appreciate your help with that. So thanks so much. And committee will pick up, well, just a note, we are gonna be doing S-224 tomorrow. No Sears amendment now. So hopefully those four reports will be unexceptional, although exceptionally well done. And we'll see you here Thursday. Thank you. Okay, stopping lunchdream now.


This study investigated the effect of carbon dioxide levels during sleep on the next day cognitive performance of young school children. The results showed no significant effect of CO2 levels during sleep on next day cognition. However, the children had higher sleep efficiency when exposed to higher levels of CO2. This could be due to chance, since the children were awoken in the morning and spent time in well, ventilated rooms before being tested. Further research is required to determine whether or not this effect is real. This article was authored by Frida Bedjer-Klausen, Ali Amity, Soren K. Jairgaard, and others.