Hello and welcome. This is the Education Committee and the Vermont House of Representatives, and it is Thursday, April 15th. We are looking at S 13 a bill that came over from the Senate and act relating to the implementation of the people waiting factors report. And I thought to start, we would have our led council just go over the, the language in the bill to sort of set the stage as to what's before us. So, welcome, Mr. DeMarie. Thank you. Good morning. Let me just show the screen here. Pull this up. You can't see that. Maybe Jesse, do you think you could you have it there because I'm having trouble getting off the internet. Thank you, Jesse. Great. Thank you. Okay, so for the record, Jim DeMarie, let's console. We're walking through S 13, which deals with the implementation of the people waiting factors report. We've been to this before. But just to highlight it once again. Findings, I won't go to the findings but the findings. First finding is about the background of the waiting study. The B finding is some of the outcomes from that study. And just to note the quiz language here that says that the findings were stark. The report says that neither the factors considered by the current formula, nor the value of the weights reflect contemporary educational circumstances and costs, and that the current values for the existing grades have weak ties, if any, with evidence describing the difference in costs of educating students with desperate needs or operating schools in different contexts. And it talks about what to do about this. Just in detail, but basically, it's a kind of ongoing effort here to correct the situation. So if you can scroll scroll down just to section two. Okay, so we this creates the task force is a legislative task force, which means that the majority of members are members of the general assembly. The main task is to recommend to the general assembly and action plan and proposed legislation to ensure that all public school students have equitable access to educational opportunities taking into account the report. Membership is chairs or designees of education. So, so finance houseways and means and house education and the Secretary of Education and Chelsea board or doesn't need to six members. So action duties of the task force again, very concrete in terms of an action plan and proposed legislation with specific tasks below. There are six of them. The first is to recommend which way factors to modify or create and their associated weights and whether any weights should be eliminated in lieu of categorical aid. To consider use of categorical categorical aid, including whether that age should be used instead of some or all the way factors and if we have factors are used where the small school grants transportation aid. The other state grant funding target funding targeted for a specific purpose should be adjusted or terminated. Three, recommend how to ensure that school districts are using funding to meet education quality standards and improve student outcomes and opportunities for consider education property tax rates and the pain, the tax and capacity of school districts and how the task force recommendations relate to the recommendations of the Vermont tax structure commission report that came out in February. Five, I found this on the web for property tax rates. Sorry, I'm sorry. Five recommend how to transition to the new weights or categorical aid to promote equity and ease the financial impact on school districts during the transition, including the availability and use of federal funding. Six, recommend how tuition rates were not operating school districts and credit technical sensors should be adjusted to account for the cost of educating students as reflected in the remark recommended weights or categorical aid. Seven consider school funding formulas in other states and alternative models for school funding. Eight, consider the relationship between the recommended weights or aid and changes especially education funding under Act 173 and the impact of the weights or aid on the goals and outcomes under Act 60 and Act 46. D requires task force to retain a consultant to assist it with expertise and experience and providing advice on Vermont's education funding funding and tax system and be naturally recognized in the field of education funding and tax systems. The task force is required to collaborate with various organizations so the bees. So the usual group here. And then after his public means, the task force is required to hold one or more meetings to share information and receive input from the public. The report will be part of our separate from its regular meetings. The report is back to you by January of next year. And the meetings are stair language if you scroll down a bit further just. This is standard. The task force shall not meet more than 12 times. It will meet more than 12 times from various places so agency is providing a measure of assistance which is organizing meetings and taking minutes technical assistance including retention of the contractor overseeing the work of the contractor. Data analysis is with JFO. The contractor will provide assistance in excluding the task force forces powers and duties and writing the report required. And this console will provide legal advice and draft proposed legislation. This is a standard. And then three section three. Just as an acknowledgement that the when, when the report comes back next year, there needs to be further action taken by the drone assembly to implement. And its intention is to pass legislation during the second year of the biennium to implement change these changes. And that I think is almost it just for them. Yeah, sorry the appropriation is 10,800 for the per diem. And 150,000 from the general fund for to JFO to retain the consultant. And the effective date is on passage. Quick question on number seven it says a positive both vote of both the House and Senate and approval by the governor would require required so if the House voted 149 to one in favor of it and the governor didn't approve of that would that mean it didn't get approved. I mean, it looks like it's just a strange language that we I think we need to look at. Yeah, that was put there. I believe just to show the intention that there are further steps to be taken to get this done. But we can change the language. Yeah, I would hate to think 149 to one and the governor said no.  Okay. Thank you. Secretary French. You had an opportunity to take a look at this. Good morning, Dan French Secretary of Education. It's good to see you all. I'm in the committee. I'm fine. I successfully testified previously on this. And so I just thought I'd make some brief comments. Really on section two, which gets into the scope of the task force. As I my prior testimony. I supported the idea of standing up a task force because I think the waiting study as as addressed and the findings. I mean, it does need some consideration and evaluation on how to implement it. My general comment would be on section two, however, is that the scope here is well beyond real sort of focused analysis of how to implement the waiting study and to a certain extent starts to appear to be a whole nother study of our finance system so I would just encourage the committee to consider narrowing the scope of the task force to really focus in on how to implement the waiting study. In particular, I just don't go through the list. Starting on page six of the items that are in the source scope. The, the feature of categorical aid is mentioned on several occasions through here and it's not clear to me why that's being included necessarily I think you know the issue of the weights and relative to x 60 is pretty clear. The goal is to equalize the funding effort. So categorical aid to me is an important mechanism of a funding system but it's sort of a recursive problem if you will, relative to the tax rate so I assume categorical aid would be raised from tax rates. So if the tax rates themselves are unequal how would that further advance the idea of addressing the goals of back 60. I think number three is a point I have raised previously about, and I think this gets to the point about how do we ensure districts are spending money in a way that would address the equity issues because the weights as you know, don't really bring additional funding they create the potential for districts to spend more if they have students that need more money from a class perspective to educate students. So the, I think we have a sort of a placeholder for that conversation again I don't think it necessarily belongs in this scope of work. That work is being addressed or will be addressed I think through a conversation around the role of the state board the role the agency and regulations and so forth. Again I don't think that necessarily belongs in this scope of work for this task force. So this is not clear to me tuition rates for non operating school districts and career technical center should be adjusted to account for the cost of students. So, not operating school districts don't have tuition rates, by definition they have to be operating to have a tuition rate. The center tuition rates. That's more or less a formulaic process by which those tuition rates are determined so this this section to me doesn't make sense, honestly. Number seven consideration of other funding formulas I think that is essentially a better part of what the weighting study includes is sort of that analysis and a look so I'm not sure that's necessary again. Issued number eight, the connection with 173 I think the weighting study points to a policy decision that needs to be made in this area but I think that that is front and center from the weighting study itself and would be essentially included in part of that work of implementation, but that's a that's more or less a simpler policy decision not necessarily one about how to actually implement the weights. That's really it. I don't really have much to say about the composition of the task force or so forth. I would just on a sort of related matter that I would just put on your radar at some point where we should have a conversation about different task force and committees that are assigned to the agency for administrative support. We have a very limited number of personnel that take minutes and posting on so forth and they're being stretched exceedingly thin with every task force or commission that's created. Be happy to answer any questions. This is a year of task forces primarily because we're unable to do our work in a normal fashion so sure, I'm going to extend that out. Question so far. Representative Conlon. Thanks. One of your comments was on sort of the scope of work of the task force, and especially around. How do we ensure that communities that might benefit with extra taxing capacity use that to serve students in the right way they and right way they should be.  I guess I'm a little concerned that really the work of the task force is to create a piece of legislation that can go before the legislature. Next year. And I think that there's a strong desire by some to make sure, you know, to ensure that that extra taxing capacity would go to what it should be used for and I guess how do we, how do we as legislators feel comfortable that that would happen. And how do we get that out within the scope of work of the task force. Yeah, I would say it's a, it's a great point. I would say, you know, we'll just take the waiting study off the table for a minute you have that issue right now. I mean so there is an equalization process that occurs right now. And to what extent does the general assembly become interested in ensuring districts are, you know, making those investments that's a question now irrespective of the waiting study. The idea of the waiting study and the idea of x 60 is that there should be equity regardless, you know, equity of effort regardless of what districts do and how they approach their needs. The effort needs to be equalized. And so I don't know to what extent it would be appropriate to put a precondition on, you know, the fairness to say basically what we would only make this fair if we had some assurance that you would spend the money in a way we'd find it consistent. But that issue exists now so I, I would say it's important policy consideration I was pointing to I think that conversation has a placeholder. But what you have in front of you in terms of the waiting study I think you're well aware is a pretty momentous finding that the equalization is not working properly and that that should be addressed head on it's complex a task and I'm fully aware of how complex it is. But a year has gone by already and I'll be at the pandemic has delayed some are review of this but there needs to be some urgency to this and I think it is it's essentially a technical problem but it's also the political aspect of how you do this in a thoughtful manner I would suggest that what's been put forward here is sort of adding sort of more work to distract from, I would say distract perhaps is too strong a word but to diffuse some of what should be a very focused political conversation on how to implement the waiting more thoughtfully. I'm just saying that the focus here should be specifically on the implementation of waiting and looking at equity of opportunity is it is a separate question to be considered at a different time. Yeah I think so I mean essentially you have the equity of opportunity that's never going to go away we have that in front of us right now with the current waiting system. I would just argue that this is a dramatic change in a what is currently a pretty tiny waiting system, and we are moving towards a much more dramatically different waiting system. And let's see representative asked and you have a question. Secretary French. I'm just wondering how you would define equity or equitable equitable for the purpose of this discussion. Yeah my response to that it has been to review our education quality standards I think that is the regulatory expression of what those sort of minimal quality requirements are for a school district. We have some statutory language around that but then that becomes more expansive in regulation. And in my earlier testimony and testimony I've given another sort of related topics I think there is a need to expand the regulatory definition of what is our baseline quality to include things like facilities maintenance and so forth. And I've shared out in some of my other testimony framework that Massachusetts uses on that. You could see it's it's much more expansive it's beyond just sort of the curriculum or instructional aspects of quality but also include sort of the basic inputs of any school district system so I think the regulatory approach there. Thank you. Thank you. I don't think we necessarily need to reinvent the wheel in that regard I think we'd find that if we did a review across the country we'd find some of the basic same elements that should be incorporated into our regulation but there's definitely a need to improve our regulatory construct to ensure better quality across the state. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for Secretary French before we move on to Tammy Colby. This is obviously an ongoing conversation I'm sure we will be speaking with you again. Please stay with us as long as you can. I'll listen into 11 and then I'll have to leave unfortunately but thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you. I want to welcome back Tammy Colby Professor Tammy Colby who did the waiting study just a reminder in terms of the context of this or perhaps. I'm going to let you set the context of how we got here with the waiting study. You'll probably be a little more articulate a bit. Thank you. Sure. Thank you Representative Web and the rest of the committee for the invitation to speak today for the record I'm Tammy Colby I'm associate professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Vermont. I'm one of the co-authors of what is now affectionately noticed the waiting study along with my colleagues Dr. Bruce Baker at Rutgers University and also Rutland Native and Dr. Jesse Levin and Drew Atchinson from the American Institute of Research. Thank you very much a team effort. What I thought I might do today as a starting point is to do a bit of a level set with what with respect to what the waiting the charge was for the waiting study. Talk real quickly about some of the key findings, because I think that helps us sort of move the conversation forward with respect to how we might think about implementing the findings so if that's okay I'd like to start that way. I want to share a few slides to help anchor that conversation and I can share those if that's okay with everyone.  Thank you. Okay. I also share these with the committee as a PDF. I believe I can do this. So just to start. Just to remind us what it was that the waiting study or sort of the charge was for the waiting study because it was actually quite narrow. And the waiting, the charge for the waiting study was to evaluate the existing weights and whether or not they should be modified. Consider whether new cost factors and weight should be incorporated into equalized people calculation. And whether or not the special education census grant should be adjusted for differences in the incidence and costs associated with students with disabilities across districts. So with three primary questions that we were asked to address here. And with those questions comes this larger framework that undergirds sort of how we start to think about answering these questions and that's with respect to this idea of cost factors and cost differentials. Just fundamentally states not just for month but all states are responsible for ensuring equal educational opportunities for students, but we know that equal opportunity doesn't necessarily translate to equal educational resources. So students come to school with dissimilar learning needs and socioeconomic backgrounds that may require different types and levels of educational support for them to achieve common outcomes. And we also know that schools in different contexts may also require different levels of resources to provide equal opportunities. So scale or the prices they must pay for all resources. And all state education funding formula not just for month include adjustments for differences in educational costs across districts. The response existing school funding policy largely relies on localities to make appropriate adjustments to their annual budgets for cost factors and then adjust for these differences in costs in its funding policy, two ways. One through categorical grants that provide supplemental funding for specific programs and services and we see that in our special education grants our transportation grants are existing small school grants. We're also waiting right and that really is the focus of this report but waiting a different districts average daily membership for cost factors and then using districts weighted membership to equalize local per pupil spending for the purposes of calculating tax rates. So what that does is it essentially means that school districts should essentially bear the same cost for educating dissimilar students existing weights in the formula. And again as a reminder we have a wait for economically disadvantaged students, English language learners, secondary students and pre kindergarten students. The pre kindergarten weight was sort of consideration of pre kindergarten students was not in our scope of work for the study. So our work was largely focused on. It was largely focused on the other three weights. Just some quick history here the economic wait for economically disadvantaged students predates the path of magnitude of that way predates the passage of Vermont Act 60 in 1997 and has not been adjusted since the value of the wait for the English language learner also predates the passage about 60 and has not been adjusted since the secondary student weight has been adjusted over time. And in 2017 we report evaluated this weight and found a ratio of 1.18 between element secondary and elementary per people spending. So we can see that there has been little recalibration since with these weights since Act 60 was passed. So what were the key findings and I'm happy to talk about methods but I think that might be a bit of a distraction for Jay so let's just focus on the key findings and if you have questions about methods we can I can answer those in specifics. Our key findings that were through our analysis we found that there were five cost factors that are related to differences in educational costs across Vermont school districts. And these and by cost factors I mean these are costs that are outside of school district control right that account for differences in spend that account for the differences in the amount that school districts need to spend in order to attain common outcomes for all students. And those five are percentage of students who are economically disadvantaged percentage of students for English language learners percentage of students who are enrolled in the middle and second grades indicators for geographically necessary small schools and population density. With respect to the weights are finding from the city suggests that it's time to incorporate both new cost factors for population density and school size into Vermont's education funding formula. And that the existing weights for the economically disadvantaged ELN ELL students do not appropriately adjust for the differences in cost of educating these students to standards, which is as a as a sort of alluded to in an earlier slide is not entirely unsurprising since the weights have not been recalibrated since prior to 1997 and even before then it's unclear that they were ever empirically based. They may be a political derivative. I also suggest two new cost factors for the equalization calculation that's for school size and population density and that these could replace the existing small school grant program in providing sort of this equalization exercise for operating costs. And that refining the secondary school way to include a differential weight for the middle and the secondary grades. One of the things that I wanted to point out here is that the weights were developed as a package. The empirical methods that were used right means that we in our regression analysis we were controlling for multiple factors, which means you can't pick and choose weights out of here and have the full equalization package work as it should. And I saw that that was one of the sort of criteria that were provided in S 13 for the task force to consider, for example, which rates to use and also perhaps tinkering with the value of the weights. It doesn't mean that we can't consider other simulations right that that create different kinds of packages of weights, but that they have to operate as a package. Think about these as a menu of options. So just a question there so so we consider it as a package but we could consider it in terms of percentages as a whole. So if we were looking at if we're looking at we're going to be implementing something but maybe we're doing something over time. And I'll talk about phase in in a moment but if it was unclear to me in reading S 13 whether they're not the legislative intent was to give the task force the ability to say well we'll just incorporate a poverty weight, and maybe one for grade ranges and that's it and we'll use the values as a report. It doesn't they don't work that way. And so I just want to caution against that in sort of your deliberations around this 13. There were a couple key findings in our report. In addition to all the quantitative analysis we actually did a lot of interviews and a lot of work in the field. Many of the individuals who participate in this in those interviews are actually on the call today as stakeholders who may testify for you as well. But I do, there were a couple key findings I wanted to highlight out of that work that I think relate to this discussion around S 13. What was you know stakeholders were uniformly opposed to continuing the small school grant program in its current form. There were there were lots of concerns about the nature of that program with respect to how schools are selected, the criteria, and also the sufficiency and funding, as well as the the ongoing politicization of that grant program, and also the extent to which that grant program might run at odds right now with other policy goals for consolidation that are related to act 46. The second consideration I want to offer out is again as you're thinking about S 13 and implementing the waiting set of report is that stakeholders were also very mixed in their perspectives on the need for potential adjustments to the census grant for differences in student poverty across school districts. And because that was, as you might remember that was our third question we were asked like, should, should we be thinking about some sort of poverty adjustment to the census block grant as it's being implemented. You know, the, the, the concerns range from gosh, we really feel like this is going to disadvantage some districts to other districts saying, I don't think this is really a big deal, but really, really the dominant narrative was it really was too soon to tell. Right, like this grant hasn't been implemented. It's really hard to know where we need to make adjustments and starting to try to make adjustments before it's implemented. It's a piece of waters, and it, and it might be the case that we were better off implementing it for a year or so and then coming back and having a real careful consideration of where we might need to be making adjustments. It's not that adjustments necessarily we should take adjustments off the table it's just, it's really hard to know when you haven't even implemented the program yet. One thing that I want to bring I want to highlight is that came out in all of our stakeholder interviews was that there is a need for specific and targeted grant aid to support school struggling to meet different and increased levels of need due to childhood trauma and mental health concerns. And that again that was highlighted through our conversations but also through sort of investigating other kinds of artifacts in the field around school budgets and whatnot, where we can see that there's a real pressure in school district around how to provide targeted and specific need. I mean targeting specific supports for students who have critical mental health needs. And so I just want to highlight those three things as we as we sort of proceed with our conversation around us 13. I just want to clarify one thing in in your number two on there, when you were talking about implementing for a while and then making adjustments was that specifically related to the census base. I'm specifically referring to the census base block grant for the special categorical program. That was our third question we were asked to consider, right like, and our and our report does model and conclude simulations for different options that you might use to adjust that grant. I think there are options, very viable policy options. I think what we heard in our stakeholder interviews, and is that it's really hard to tell to get to, in what ways into what magnitude adjustments are needed before program is actually implemented. And so our recommendation in the report was not so much that adjustments aren't necessary, but that it's too soon to tell where and what kind of adjustments might be needed. So it's not it's not a, no, it's not necessarily a no we shouldn't ever talk about adjustments it's that without having implemented the program it's very hard to start to sort of proactively start to think about how to tinker and fine tune that policy. When we haven't even implemented. West representative Austin you have a question. I do. In number two. Once, or when this is implemented what are the. What are the factors I mean how could we set it up. How could it be set up so we would be looking for factors to determine if adjustments needed to be made what how what would be the mechanism to do that so we could make a fair and equitable decision at, you know, after a year. That's a really great question. And then my understanding is that the act 173 implementation task force has been actually looking at that question, but clearly with the when any policy change was certainly one for special education we want to be carefully monitoring information around child count, looking for discrepancies and service delivery, right, major changes, and also talking to individuals in the field to understand. To understand the dollars are receiving or insufficient. But I also want I also want to want to make this point. I know today our focus isn't on one set at 173 but I do I do think this important is a foreign follow on point representative Austin which was at 173 while it had fiscal components to it. And intent actually was more around programs and systems change with respect to how we situate and our supports and services with students with disabilities and align our systems of support with our multi tiered systems of support and other right tiered interventions for students. In that study that we did in 2017, what we found is a lot of friction in the field between a reimbursement model, and that being insufficiently flexible, right. Yeah, and because of that inflexibility it was difficult for for schools and districts to make the kind of systemic policy systemic changes that other kinds of policies we have in the state have as primary goals to improve services and supports for not just disabilities but struggling students across the board. So, you know, yes, we need to be monitoring this but we actually need to be thinking about this in terms of programs but not in not just money right that's the intersection. Would you say that the census based funding grant change could happen independently of changing the weights. But right, I mean it's already on the books and so I, I, and I think I testified before this committee earlier this session that now is definitely the time to make sure that that goes through school districts need that flexibility in those dollars to develop and implement comprehensive systems of support for struggling students across the board. We've always needed that. And coming off the pandemic we particularly need that right school districts need the ability to develop flexible comprehensive models for service delivery that not only meet their obligations to students with as articulated in their IEPs, but also struggling students across the board and act when the programmatic intent of that 173 was to provide that flexibility and encourage that type of flexibility and systems change within districts and schools to improve service delivery for struggling students. Thank you. So, I want to talk about implementing the studies findings. And then I'm going to take a couple of specific comments to s 113 and then certainly have questions that we can open the floor more, more broadly for questions. There are a number of policy considerations for implementing the studies findings. You know, as you saw in the in the questions we were asked to asked to answer and I think we did a really good job of answering those questions and frankly so does the field. The report has been identified as as a national model. It was recently published in one of the top journals in the field. It was referred by a national panel of experts and, you know, it's a good report we have good right we have really solid work in there, but our scope was not our scope of work didn't consider implementation, and that's just where we are. So, there are a number of things that I think that are I'm going to call policy considerations or design considerations that are still on the table. But that could be the work of a task force. It also could be work of the legislature but you know the task force certainly allows for stakeholder input and sort of works broader input on these questions. So there are a couple big policy decisions or policy options that need to be discussed. One is, you know, one option with the weights is to bring bring is to put in place the new set of weights for school districts, and this is in population density, and the policy decision there would be to have those weights in lieu of the existing small schools grant program. That's a policy decision. I'm happy to talk about why I think my expert opinion why I think it makes a lot of sense to adjust for differences and costs for size and density in weights versus a categorical grant program if that's something we want to talk about. That's a policy decision and right now, JFOs modeling, which they did assumes that the small school grant program continues as is, and doesn't include those weights are simulations do. It does not mean that what JFO it's done is wrong it just means that we have multiple, we have multiple simulations out there. And we need to make right part of this scope of this scope of the task force needs to be making that kind of policy decision what is going to be the recommendation. Are we going to continue on with the categorical program or are we going to bring the weight are we going to handle cost differences in that related to size and sparsity within our equalized people calculation. The second thing that I think needs to be considered with regard to implementation is, you know, when we did our, our simulations, we use the configuration of school districts that were in place in 2017. There have been changes, we all know there may be more changes so there's going to be a need to update the simulations, which include sort of those tax capacity calculations for any changes that have had occurred or may occur, right with respect to school district consolidation, or even fracturing some of some of these consolidation efforts. And Representative Web, you already mentioned this around phase in, right, and I think I think Secretary of French has testified to this as well, you know, a hard start on this going, you know, from where we are right now to the new set of weights. I mean that's a pretty big shock to the system and Representative Conlin has already mentioned today, you know, like, these are pretty substantial changes in weights, again, not unsurprising, given the amount of time that has gone by. Without having a recalibration and the fact that the weights probably weren't empirically derived in the first place. But it's a hard start. And so one of the considerations for implementation is, what would, what would a phase in look like, right, like how would you phase these in, and whether or not for districts for for school districts that might see changes in those conditions. Whether or not a whole harmless provision of some sort is included in that phase in, right, so maybe thinking about how the weights themselves are calibrated, right in terms of phase in, but also whether or not there's, there's room for some harmless provisions. And there may be opportunities right now that we didn't have a year ago with the federal dollars that are coming to the state to buffer some of these changes in the short run. For, and this comes up in the report to is, you know, there's a concern that and it's already come up today to that we adjust the tax rates, but with the assumption that for districts where the equalized people calculation goes up. And that they will use that new tax capacity to spend more, rather than, right, take a tax cut. And one of the things that that is a concern is is that, you know, a tax cut, rather than making those additional investments. It sort of runs counter to the narrative here right. And so one of the things that needs to be considered an implementation is whether or not there would be some sort of maintenance of effort with respect to tax rates. We've received some additional tax capacity by virtue of, you know, we recalibrating the weights, whether or not a district would then be compelled to maintain a certain level of spending or a certain level of taxation, and not take a tax break both in terms of property taxes but also in terms of municipal taxes, right because these two things can be fungible. I think that everybody in this committee is aware of the impact of maintenance of effort and what maintenance of financial support what that means, could you just. I wasn't referring to that in the sense of special education, I was referring to that as a specific policy option the task force might consider with respect to this saying that we there could be a maintenance of effort provision as a part of that says, if your tax rate right now is x, and you are now able to spend more right by virtue you get additional tax capacity, your option isn't to continue to is to spend what you are now, and take a tax cut. I understand I'm saying, because that's a risk. And so this is a policy decision and I would suggest that a task force or the legislature, this is an issue that needs to be considered in the implementation of any sort of recalibration. In the next five. There's also need room here to reconsider or sort of talk about the excess spending threshold. And whether or not that how, whether or not there needs to be some flexibility in that cap in the short run but also what that cap looks like in the long run with the recalibration with a meeting recalibration. An opportunity here as well and implementing it to talk about the role of the yield and establishing minimum spending thresholds for the state for districts. And finally, you know there's going to be a need for updated simulations that reflect updated budgets and also this issue of federal aid right that's coming in and out. So those are the kinds of questions that I see really needing to be addressed in a thoughtful way around sort of the larger question of how you might implement the waiting study. It's more than just the weights, all of these things are related. And I, you know, here would be a punch list that that I would suggest of really critical concerns that have to be part of that, part of that conversation. But there, there are also in addition to those things I would say there are two additional policy opportunities that come out and they're sort of flagged in our report, and that is whether or not there, whether or not the state would like to take steps to put a cataclysm aid program in for students important mental health. And again this question of poverty adjustments for special education on the block grant. So if you think about this one slide, I must think of this as a checklist of things that a task force or a working group or the legislature specifically needs to consider in its deliberations around how we're aware or what to do with implementing the findings from the waiting study report. In addition to that I just had, you know, for four quick reflections or considerations for Senate bill 13, which I know is on your agenda and, and all of you are needing to make some decisions about the first one is with respect to the scope of the task force work. As Secretary French said, you know he and I did talk earlier this week. I think we share the same. I'm careful use were concerned, but I'll use it anyway is that you know this is a pretty broad scope of work. It also has a really short timeframe and a pretty small group of people. I, in it, I, you know, I understand as Secretary's friends concerns or sort of admonishments around like, are we opening up the big with a whole formula we focused on implementation, I think those are worthy considerations. I also wonder about whether or not the scope of work is doable within that that period of time, and whether or not that the scope is so broad, it's going to be a mile wide and an inch deep, right. Whereas if you go back to that earlier slide that I just offered on these really specific things that we that like to make changes in the weights that have to be considered with some real careful consideration and thoughtfulness and depth. Right, like having a really broad scope might dilute those efforts. So I just want to flag that flag that as a consideration as you're moving forward and your deliberations. The second thing I already alluded to is I noted in the in S as 13 is there was some just some reference to sort of being able to pick and choose weights and, you know, the parsing of the weights for specific and cost factors is not something that's supported in the analysis in the report, the weights operate as a package. There are options for how you we might we might think about simulating different packages of weights we can certainly talk about that, but as as configured now that that's not an option. And that was that was a decision that was made as a part of the stakeholder group when we were when we were doing the report. I did note that in the task force scope, there are some there's some duplication of effort with the weighting study report again thinking about that broad scope and trying and trying to be efficient with people's time. And same thing duplication effort with other resources in the field. The existing the weighting study includes what I think is pretty careful and thoughtful analysis of, you know what the national landscape looks like with school funding formulas in addition really in depth vignettes for the northeastern states and some other comparison states. I noted that that was on the task force agenda and it seems duplicative to me as written. The second thing is is that there was a pretty careful evaluation of the role of existing category programs including transportation special education in small schools. In S 13 there was some discussion about considering that so if they're if it's the legislature's intent to consider those programs. I think more clarification for the task force and like what it is that they should be considering that it's different than what's been done already would be helpful. And the last one I want to talk about briefly is is there's a lot of language in S 13. We've already started talking about today about these comparisons between a waiting system and adjusting for costs with respect to categorical aid. I've seen this and not just in S 13 and it's something that's been bubbling up more generally, you know, to be clear, our study was not asked or it was not, you know, was our existing study does not include a direct comparison between these policy options for adjusting for differences and costs between school districts using people weights and a set of categorical grant programs. So that certainly can be something that a task force is considered. But I do want to respond more generally to this, if I may, since it seems to be an important policy issue that's that's being deliberated and say this, that, you know, categorical aid programs are one tool for adjusting for cost differences between school districts. And, you know, just like any tool there are tools that are used for certain purposes, and there are tools that are not as well equipped to use in certain purposes. And I think we have to think carefully about what the criteria are for when categorical aid programs are most effective. And categorical aid programs cannot and should not be used to adjust for differences and costs in fact our existing school funding system uses them right so the real policy question here for you and others is right with when our categorical aid programs, most appropriate, and what are the kinds of mechanisms appropriate in this case weights. And I just, I want to put some criteria out there for all of us to consider as we've had this conversation and that is, you know, what are we really trying to do right like what are we designing toward. And what are we designing toward, you know, if the policy question is one of equalizing costs generally across school districts, right, and recognizing that school district school districts and schools are going to have differences in operating costs. Due to a constellation of factors. Right. Then, categorical aid is not necessarily a good fit in terms of a policy response because categorical aid programs are best used when they provide specific and targeted support for particular programs or students. We see that right now right and transportation aid special education. But when we start to talk about a general aid, right things that can't be parsed out neatly. Right for a student on a per student base or so pulls per school basis, categorical aid programs are both less efficient and less effective tools for adjusting for differences and costs. And that doesn't mean you can't do it right it's it's the adage of you know you have a screwdriver you make the screwdriver work right but what you really needed was a wrench. And so, you know, we need to think about what we're trying to really design to here. And so, categorical aid programs, we can think about them as being better fits for specific programs and student types such as students with disabilities potentially even ELL students, right, and a much less good fit for offsetting the cost of serving economically disadvantaged students, for example, where the programs and supports in schools are systemic right and diffuse. It's not tricky with categorical grant programs to truly equalize costs, generally across school districts, right, because what it requires is a myriad of categorical grant programs. Right, you'd have to you have to have categorical grant programs for all these little different things if you really want to equalize for these generalized right through these general differences in operating costs. And that really poses serious challenges for policy for two reasons. One, you got to have good criteria for figure out like what should the grant programs before like what you know what he's providing money for into calibrating the amount of aid that goes right that for for those things. And we can look at New York State is a good example of why this is really difficult to do well. You know if you follow New York State you know they've been embroiled now for nearly 30 years and constitutional litigation around adequacy and funding and the approach that they've long used is one of sort of lots of little categorical aid programs that go on top of some sort of base foundation amount. And they have gotten critiqued over and over and over again by the courts, because it's really difficult to get the get the categorical aid programs right. They're trying to provide categorical aid programs that are not specific and targeted enough, and they don't have good enough information on what the actual dollar amount for those categorical aid programs needs to be. We can see evidence of this, even in Vermont with the struggles we've had over the years around small school grant program right like who should get it, what should the criteria be how much money is sufficient to offset costs, right. I just, I want to put that out there. The other thing we have to remember is that categorical aid programs are additive by additive what that means is they're going on top of whatever else is being spent or other spending decisions and they're also separate from right the dollars come in separately. And so that creates equity challenges, a new set of equity, I want to say challenges new set of equity considerations, right for policymakers and those equity considerations are really grounded in, you know, $500 going to school this school district at the high spending district of $5 per student $500 per student, hypothetically, in a district that's already high spending means something very different than $500 per student in a district that's low spending. And in a state where we don't have a foundation program, and we already we've got variation spending and local control with spending decisions. This additive nature of categorical programs is really tricky to calibrate well, if we're going to use categorical programs to as an equalizing or an equity mechanism. I'm seeing some questions and I want to make sure that they might be for I just want to make one more point. I think the question is great. The other thing we have to think about here is that categorical grants are going to place new right so if you want if we if we if we take if we say we're going to we're going to use categorical grant programs instead of waiting. That's a high that the policy choice you might make. You also have to consider that it places new responsibilities on the state. Those may be responsibilities that that the state is willing to take, but I think you have to be explicit in your considerations there. And that is in terms of administrative costs, which are sometimes substantial. And also the new responsibility to oversee and monitor the programs that you're funding. There's a shift here and responsibility with regard to sort of making decisions about those dollars, because they've been pulled apart and there's a different accountability system. All that said, I don't want I don't want sort of my soliloquy here as being taken as unantique. I'm not right. I just, you know, when I see this discussion, sort of percolating and you see it in S 13 explicitly. I think it's a I just want to put out that like these are really important design considerations. Right. Like, this is all a continuum. There are choices that you can make. But I think it's important to keep on the table like when when are hammers most appropriate and when are screwdrivers most appropriate and what are we designing to and what are some of the tradeoffs with all of that. So, I'll just stop there but I thought just again in the context of S 13 it might be important to sort of provide a little context for that. Thank you. I did. I do know and I won't have you respond now but title title are certainly categorical. Yes, federal federal dollars are categorical that is correct. I'm talking. Yes, you know, that the federal government operates categorical programs because they have no north authority, a real way of providing general operating support. That's a mechanism they can use. I want to go to representative James then conlon and arison. Representative James. Thanks chair web. And thank you so much. Dr Colby for your testimony today, Professor Colby. I can call me Tammy. I don't think we're supposed to. That's right the rules are. I have two questions I won't ask any further about category because I think you were very, very clear and compelling. My second question is your study did not consider the pre K wait. No. Okay, did not it was not in the scope of work. My understanding and this is something Secretary French might be able to speak to more clearly was that there was a sense that there is so much flux in the pre K sector right now that trying to develop a reliable and valid estimate of differential costs associated with pre K at this time was probably not something that anybody could do. It does not mean that that way shouldn't under shouldn't be inspected. I think that where we are in its current policy context and some of the big shifts in the policy context that trying to get a clear fix on like what that cost differential actually should be would be really hard to do right now. And so that was not included in our scope of work. Okay, and then my second question is, I'm trying to understand a little bit better. As, as funding for special ed transitions through Act 173. And see we did, we just decided that that the census based block grant system hasn't been implemented yet we need to give it time to do that so we're just going to let that happen separately. So there's 74 of the waiting study. I guess what I don't understand then is when you, when you set out your, your different models or your simulations. One column, you know you, you say here are the new weights, and then it seemed to me if I was understanding it correctly that, you know, one column controls for student disabilities, and one column doesn't, and I don't understand the connection between that discussion and the census block grants and Act 173. It's it's it is clear and it's unclear intentionally unclear because you know it's intentionally unclear clear in the report because it was a it was a design, it was a, it was a design request to say what would the weights look like if we have we no longer operated a categorical grant program. Right for special ed that you just brought this all in. And so essentially that's what that does. So, as you know that are recommended weights, don't look that way because discontinuing the categorical grant program for special ed has been a policy consideration that has come off the table. But in early deliberations there was some, there was an interest in modeling that I said, okay, so that's why I mean it's intentionally. It's something that needed to be in the report, you'll notice that in our executive summary in our subsequent testimony that that that that went away because that just is that's a policy option that my understanding is, is to come off the table. Okay, I actually didn't notice that maybe I was looking at an old like version of the report or something but okay so that entire column that that base that entire column was based on a policy premise that we would skip the whole block grant program and integrate students with disabilities as a weight and that's. Well, yeah. Whether or not we're going to embed special education, the cost of special education students and other weights or not. Okay, okay. And so our throughout the report. We modeled different policy simulations right that where there would be different policy decisions that was one particular policy decision that we were asked to model and we did. And that has come off the table which is why it was not included in my slides and so our recommendation for the strongest sort of models that for weight generation are the ones that I presented today. Great. Okay, thank you so much. Sorry for the confusion. No, I was, I totally great. I shouldn't have get it now. Okay, thank you. Representative common. Thanks. And I guess, Madam chair might ask you if you. I've got lots of lots of questions that I could ask that are probably more appropriate for the task force if we create one so I'm going to try to keep this focused on what's in front of us if that's what you prefer. Let it rip. Okay. Thank you so much. So in terms of the proposal before us as 13. And your long experience with creating public policy around education. This is a bit of a different task force than we've seen before strictly legislators kind of small. If you wanted to weigh in on that. I think the membership on the task force needs to reflect the scope of work. So if in fact the task forces focuses on how to implement the waiting study that I think you have the right group of people. Right that these are very specific questions. If in fact there's legislative interest and intent in addressing this larger constellation of questions which are really important questions around our school funding system in the state around, you know, taxation policy, you know, things along those lines. I would suggest that there needs to be a much larger group involved. You know, that to me is not an eight month project in fact that feels to me like we should be all having an ongoing conversation and an ongoing group that's working on this in a synthetic way. Right. I don't I don't by saying by saying that by my comments on the scope of the task force I'm not saying that these other kinds of issues and questions that are sort of embedded in this 13 or unimportant. Let me be very clear about that I think there's, they're incredibly important and valuable. I just think that they are sufficiently important and valuable that sort of doing a broad brush eight months quick and dirty kind of real isn't going to cut it, it isn't going to cut it. And, and so my suggestion would be that that we start to think about parallel tracks here, maybe short term long term. In the absence of other major changes to our school funding system. You know, in the short run we do have an equalized people calculation. We do it's there. It is our primary mechanism in the formula for for for, you know, taxpayer equity as well as you know hopefully equalizing educational opportunities for students. And to the extent that the weights are miscalibrated the formula is not working as intended. And so we're going to stop. Right. We also have these other questions over here around like, do we want to continue running a school funding system the way we are now. Important questions, but we're not going to answer those in eight months and we certainly aren't going to answer them with a small group of people in a back room, you know started trying to think this through so I would respectfully suggest that there's the way forward here is if if it's a legislature's intent to respond to report recommendations which are that the weight seem to be recalibrated and equalized people calculation updated in the near term to meet those obligate the meets the states obligations under that formula, then the task force needs to be focused on those specific things that move that task forward. There also should be another group comprised of broad range of stakeholders and experts frankly in school finance, and that starts to really work on these larger questions that bring in, you know, the recent report on taxation that bring by they bring in all of these other big considerations and think about this much more holistically. I don't. I represent column does that answer your question. Yeah, very nicely. Yeah, thank you. It's an end in both. Every center version. Thank you. I just want to go back to the slide with the list of the new waiting or the proposed new waiting factors. So I make sure I understand it, and you don't have to bring it up. The waiting factor for poverty is 0.25, which in the chart it said 0.25 but I think it really should be 1.25 and the new one would be 2.97. And so correct me if I'm wrong in the equalized pupil count currently 10 students that that the family met the poverty level would be counted as 12 and a half students and the new count would put them to almost 30. And the reason I'm asking that is that that seems to be the weight that's going to shift the needle farther than any of the others. So, so, so the answer is yes and no. So let me start with the yes and then let me then go to the no. So, so the yes is that that it's that that the weight of 0.25 is the current weight and 2.97 would be the change. If they have 1.25, then the weight would be 3.97. They're calibrated differently. The no answer is that it's not as simple as counting pupils the way that you just did in the equalized people calculation, because some of the weights are additive and some of the weights are multiplicative that's not that's not anything we did. That's just how the equalized people calculation is done. And in the report we tried to find a table that said like, this is how it works. And so what happens is that because these weights some of the weights are additive and some of the weights are multiplicative and they all combine together that it's not a direct translation saying it's 2.97 It multipliers to 0.25 versus 2.97. It doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't work. It doesn't work that way in the calculation. So, yes, there's a substantial change. And yes, that is one of the primary drivers of if you're thinking about the equalized people calculation tax rates and tax capacity, you know, that's one of the primary drivers of sort of rearranging the duck chairs around the state. No doubt about that. The interpretation of the weights and sort of how how that works is subtly but importantly different by virtue of how the calculation is articulated in statute. Thank you. Representative Williams. Yes, thank you. First, I would like to show my appreciation Professor Colby for your comments on categorical grants. I personally have, I am uncomfortable with the possibility that they are not used equitably. And they scare me to think that they might be used in balancing because they might not get to where they really should be. Secondly, I'm not sure if this is a comment or a question or I just need to come out and say it, but as a representative of a very rural area that has been under financed in the in this process, I'm getting a lot of constituents saying please let's stop doing these studies and the task force and let's move forward it's time to an act. I sit here today I'm thinking that probably can't happen because of it's just too much to this process to just move forward that quickly. Do you agree. And I'm trying to figure out how I communicate with my constituents about, I understand the urgency we've been short changed for a long time, but, and I don't know how to fill in the box. That's a really tough question and I appreciate the spot you're in. I know there are strong feelings around the state on the part of lots of people on and, and in different directions at times right and you know this when we make substantial policy changes like this particularly ones that are financial. It's certainly, it certainly raises concerns and stress, lots of places. So I do want to acknowledge, like this is not an easy shift. And I think we're seeing some of the products of that in our conversations and debates around the issue. But what is this is that, you know, I would hope that the waiting study that we did provides the empirical evidence and read in sort of technical details that policymakers need to do something. It does not mean that there aren't still some things to be done right and I tried to give a punch list of what those are in that slide. And I think the real question for policymakers and this is, this is more political than it is anything which is, is it. Is the task at hand right now, one of opening up the conversation to restructuring the entire school funding system. Or is the task at hand at this present moment, calibrating the weights and ensuring that the state is meeting its obligations under the existing funding formula. And also keeping its eye on the ball with respect to these larger systemic changes that may be necessary. That's a political calculus. You know, I work really hard to stay objective and so I'm not going to weigh in on which ones, what the options are here right like where you might go politically on that, but it seems to me that that's kind of the fork in the road. Right. And the other thing I would say and I said this in ways and means, is that legislatures done a really good job over the past number of years, you have really good studies. You know, I'd say the Act 173 study is good. I mean, at one a national award. This is an excellent study. The pike is studies is excellent. You have the new tax. Like, you have good information. In fact, you have better information than many states have. And you have good partners. Right. I'd like to think that University of Vermont is a good partner and we have good partners in the state or our thought partners with the legislature on this. I don't know that this is an issue. I don't know how much more studying needs to be done. I think the real fork in the road here is how how to proceed with policy making. Right. Like, you know, is, is, is the issue of the weights for example going to be taken on in the larger context of a conversation around, you know, bigger issues in school funding in the state. If it is, then that's a longer term conversation. Right. And in the meantime, the weights are not doing their job. And, you know, they're risk, they're risk with that in the state. Or is this or is this an and both, right, which is there, there needs to be a recalibration of the weights under the existing formula while also keeping sort of this cry in the ball for these larger conversation that is important. So, I don't know if that's the butt you were looking for but I, you know, I think that's the best way I can answer that question and not get not waiting into the political weeds, which I'm trying not to do. I appreciate that. Thank you. One more thing. The study the UVM study that you put together that is gone national. Awesome, awesome, awesome. Are you getting a lot of international feedback in supporting that or certainly have gotten, I wouldn't give feedback we've gotten a lot of interest in it. As I said, the study itself was recently published in one of the top study findings and methods were published in one of the top journals and field, not not not a school funding journal actually, which is more narrow but actually on the top education policy journals in the field which is, I would consider an even broader audience, which is hard to do. It's hard to publish this work because it's it's it's difficult to do well and you know that means that it is reaching a much broader audience we as a follow on to this work, the state of New Hampshire contracted with the same group, and we just finished a design process for New Hampshire, using the same methods and approaches and they are very pleased with that. Thank you, Secretary French and representative from New Hampshire just presented with us at a national conference on the experiences and sort of what was learned in the processes around these kinds of studies. So, you know, the good news is, you know, good news is that Vermont is really at the forefront of thinking about these issues as it has been for many, many years right. And so that's a good thing. Thank you for your work. And welcome representative back who's visiting us from the Ways and Means Committee. Appreciate having you, your presence here. This has been an issue you've been following for some time. Thank you chair web, just throw my, my nickel into the conversation here. Usually a quarter representative back. Well it's the bottom build day so I'm going to throw in a nickel. So, I appreciate the comments from everybody and from Professor Colby's work in the road and so let me just throw my nickel in here. You know, the root cause of all of the changes in governance act 46 all the studies act 173, the pupil waiting study, the adequacy study all of these. They come from a dissatisfaction with Vermonters in their, how much it costs them in their property tax rates to pay for education, and they don't understand how our highest in the nation per pupil spending translates to the education receiving on the ground. And those two causal factors are what has caused all of this work to be completed up until this point. There are some out there, and a lot of them are colleagues that believe that if we just change the pupil waiting here and there, or we just change the excess spending threshold a little bit, that it will solve those problems. The truth is, they will not. They will not address the causal factors for all of this work. The causal factors for all of this work is that districts are too loosely connected between their spending decisions, and their tax rates, that's what causes the equity. That's what causes the, the huge differences between what districts spend it, you have a big disconnection and that is why the house has made attempts to close that connection most notably with House bill one 911 that passed in 2018. And so I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the, the fork that needs to be gone down is the one where there is a restructuring of the education fund to address those causal factors. But when we actually do change the waiting, which I think we will do, and we actually do change the excess spending threshold, I hope we eliminate it all together, that they will actually have the effect that we want them to have, which is districts like they're more in control, with a tax rate that more closely reflects their spending decision, high quality education for all kids, and equity across a whole myriad of different, different issues, not just people waiting. So I think that the group, the task force, I think is the right group, I think we're at the point here where decisions have to be made hard decisions will have to be made. And, but I think if we just think we're going to solve a problem by changing people waiting, then we're not really going to solve a problem we're just going to swirl the money around, and we'll find ourselves right back here five 10 years from now. That's my nickel. Representative back. I'm unsure whether there was a question to which you wanted me to respond. No, no questions to comment. Okay. Thank you. Your comments stand. Yeah. Representative Austin. Yes, thank you. Could you help me understand a couple of things one is the current waiting, the current waiting percentage for poverty weights, which I believe is point to five. Yes, and then the studies funding, if implemented would be at 2.97. Correct. How did you arrive at that. And how do you see that if implemented that money that funding would go directly to students, you know, in a lower to address poverty. So, I'm happy to talk about methods. And let me do it in just a real high level way and represent Austin if you'd like to have a more specific conversation or other members where I'm happy to have a very specific and detail conversation around methods but let me step back and I just sort of talk about some big picture terms. So, right, the weights were developed using something called cost function modeling. And what the strength of cost function modeling is it actually ties spending back up. It ties the estimation of differences in costs with student outcomes. That's a really different approach than has been used in the past, and as they said it's state of the field and special in school funding research and what it does is it says, what are the additional dollars necessary to spend to ensure that students with certain characteristics in this case and economically disadvantaged student achieves at the same level as his or her peers who are not economically disadvantaged. So that's the delta if we think about the difference right and so we're right and we've set on existing spending patterns by looking at districts, large numbers of districts are spending. In this study we use Vermont data for the primary estimation, but because I think in Vermont we always wonder whether or not we're idiosyncratic for lots of reasons. We also did the same estimations using data for schools and districts in the northeast, and schools and districts nationally to triangulate. And the reality is the results trying right and so we asked so we estimate that cost differential for each of those cost factors that we identified. And then we used a process to estimate the weights based on those cost differentials. Dr. Bruce Baker may have made an excellent presentation on exactly how that, how that, and how that translation works statistically. He made that presentation to Senate Ed, I believe it's available. I'm happy to have him come in and talk to you about the sort of the statistical processes around that. But you can think of that as a multi step process is these right we use those kinds of data, the period of time that was considered for the study was 11 years from 2009 to 2018. Right. So, I don't know if that's a pretty high level answer representative Austin is that sufficient for right now I. Yes, I'm happy to bring in more I'm happy to bring in more detail and I'm also happy to be happy to have to connect the committee with Dr Baker if you'd like to have the really specifics on the statistics for how that process works. I don't know how you arrived at it but how if it was implemented how do we know that children who are so so socio economically disadvantaged will get those funds to lift them up in order to equalize their access to. That's right. So that's one of the limitations in our existing formula right that the existing formula equalizes costs but the assumption is that districts are making good choices about how to spend those dollars. So the fundamental assumption in our existing school funding system is that the district that the budgets of districts are passing are adequate to meet student needs all student needs, and that they're investing those dollars in the most efficient and effective way possible. That that is the underlying assumption with how the system works as it's the weights, the weights calibrate right the weights equalize costs across district based on the budgets that are passed by school districts. So there is, and to represent the facts point there is in the current formula, no explicit connection between the dollars right between the weights and how districts might choose to spend those dollars. There are other mechanisms policy mechanisms in our system that are intended to do that right that for example the education quality standards that Secretary French referred to earlier today. But there is no explicit connection between the weights and districts spend how districts invest those dollars. The other thing to remember about our weights is unlike a foundation formula which is, you know, the formula that is operating in most states nationwide, our weights don't provide additional dollars to districts. Our weights all they're doing is equalizing spending decisions by districts that have already been made. So we're not driving additional dollars out. I'm going to take us to 15 more minutes. I think we'll be able to do this. I want to give representative Hooper an opportunity. Thank you Madam chair and thank you professor for being here your your testimony is always very succinct and knowledgeable. If if back is going to throw in a nickel I'm going to try and throw in a whole dime being that it is indeed bottle bill day. Professor, currently our current system. What is our metric for measuring equity. Great question. And I think we have to think about, there's different kinds of equity. Well, first of all, let's back up. You know, equities, equity is all about distribution, right, like an equity is normative it's fair like so fair distribution of what, right, I mean that's what we have to start to think about when we say equity so equity isn't one thing. It's what right it's something that we're distributing that we're interested in or if we think are important. And so our current system right now, certainly considers explicitly considers taxpayer equity. That was a big consideration right in xxt. So if we, if your question is is what does our existing funding system consider it considers taxpayer equity. And by extension, it is also considering equal educational opportunities which is, if you think about that's distribution of opportunities to learn. Right, so those are implicit, those two things right are implicit in terms of equity calculations in our existing system. What do we actually measure. That's a little trickier right like we we know we can start to look at spending right as a proxy for some of these things and we know in this state right we've got some pretty big spending differentials. We can look at tax rates. Right, we also have some pretty big differences in tax rates in tax capacity, right the ability to spend some differences there. What else can we look at, we can think about right because those are kind of input based, but we also know process matters right it's not the dollars that matter it's what we spend the dollars on and how we invest them. We also know that we have some pretty big differences across school districts in the state to particular with regard to teacher qualifications teaching right other kinds of instructional resources facilities. So this question of equity. It's a tricky one right because it's we have to we have to agree on what we're distributing and what and then we have to think about what's fair, but if you want to take the narrow definition of equity under under 60 right the school funding statutes, you know, the two principal things that are considered our outcomes, right joy opportunities to learn, which is also kind of process you but you know that, but, and taxpayer equity and fiscal equity in terms of distribution of tax burden and contributions across the state, do the statewide pool of revenues for school that fund school budgets. I mean, I'm not trying to obfuscate it's just not easy. It's just not it's not one of those easy straightforward questions. Absolutely. Not a 10 and not a 1205. But professors fairly safe to suggest that the current system does not focus centrally on the equity of educational opportunity for students. The funding system is focused on taxpayer equity certainly but by indirectly it is certainly focused on, right, the whole, the whole point of the weights right is equalize costs, and and by equalizing is intended to consent in districts, right and provide the capacity for districts to spend what it is they need to spend on kids to provide equal educational opportunities. And the weights are miscalibrated. It means that school districts that might need and want to spend more, because that's what they need to do to provide equal educational opportunities face a really tough choice taxing right taxing themselves at a rate that's high, or not spending enough. And we can see evidence of that like we see that we see that tension around the state right like we see districts that are really struggling and taxing and really high rates. As a community they've said we're going to continue to do this. We also see districts that you know communities that say, we're not willing to tax it that high of a rate. And so we don't spend enough. And so it's that connection right there that creates the unequal opportunity right for students across districts. So acknowledging that today's for weights are too few and inadequate. We're basically facing an opportunity, the fork in the road the question is do we go. Do we embrace the data in your study and advance with along that track, or do we depart from that. Correct. Yeah, I wouldn't say I wouldn't I wouldn't put it I wouldn't put these as polar opposites if I might sit in respect Philly so that's representative or what I would say is this I think you have a timing issue here. Right. And that is the weights are miscalibrated. I think, I mean that the evidence is pretty clear on that right the way to miscalibrate period full stop. And so the question is, is, what are the effects of miscalibrated weights. Right. Well right in the effects of the miscalibrated rates are that school districts that where that would benefit from the change in weights face a really difficult decision, which is, taxing themselves at a much higher rate than they have to, should have to, to pay for for to provide an adequate education for their students, or not taxing themselves at that rate, and essentially not spending at the level that they should to provide adequate education for their students. That's that's the condition right now. And the question the policy question is, is, do we address that immediate concern now, or do we not now and fold it into a larger process that might take multiple years to do. That's a really, I mean that's a political calculus there. I'm not going to weigh into the political calculus but I mean that's a stark of terms as I can put right like that's the decision like you can do it now, or you're going to, or you're going to kick the can down the road. But if you kick the can down the road, these conditions are going to persist. Can I, may I ask two or three more questions or. I'm seeing other people and I want to just hold for one second, I just want to throw in one myself here. A question here, as we're talking about equity and spending we have districts that are spending twice what other districts are spending. So, for simplicity sake we have one district that is fine is spending or they're spending 10,000 per student and the other one spending 20,000 per student. Do we have any information about the process, how those relate to, for example, poverty. What is motivating a district what motivated district a that was 10,000 versus the one that was 20,000 to make those decisions is it. What drives that are we high poverty low poverty, high spending low spending if we put it into a quadrant. Do we have, do we have a sense of anything that motivates that is is poverty a driving force poverty should be a driving force right so if we're we know that it costs more to educate economically disadvantaged students, we know right the research the research is crystal clear. That in order for students coming from economically disadvantaged backgrounds that to achieve at the same level as their non economically disadvantaged peers that school districts on average need to invest more resources. Do we know, do we know that that low spending district is also a high poverty. We certainly can look at that and there's information in our report that looks at that but yeah right and so in Vermont right now, what we would hope to see is that after we adjust for cost of living and cost of inputs right that high spending districts would be highly correlated with concentrations of student need right higher kind and that low spending districts would be the opposite right, we don't see that. In some cases we see the opposite, some of our highest spending districts are the districts that have proportionally smaller shares of students in need. Right. Right. I want to go to representative Brady and then I'll go back to you representative Hooper okay. Okay. Thank you. I have a question for for mark I'm not, I'm not sure. If I'm even thinking this through straight but if we say we implement the weights, you know we start to correct some of this in districts who are going to see a big tax increase or loss of equalized people, I should say, districts that are going to lose a lot of equalized people's if they decide if they say, we are going to just spend that much more to keep our education programming or quality where it is, or even increase it. How does that then because we still have a state statewide ed fund. So if those districts are then spending even more. What does that do to the whole picture correlation to the districts that we were trying to help through waiting is there sort of a, yeah. This is a great question and a terrific insight. And this is part of the reason on that list of things I said that the implementation the committee needs to consider is the excess spending threshold, right. So when access he was put in right there was there was a governor at the top that that was intended to keep districts from continuing trying to lift off, right and provide provide more and less, both because of equity concerns, but also also because under a statewide property tax everybody pays, right. So when this district decides over here they want to put an indoor track in everybody pays everybody pays. And so that's why this that's why these conversations we, we have to think about that at the top in the bottom. That's one response so you're correct that that's part of all of this. And so that's why in that conversation around implementing any changes in the way it's we also have to talk about the excess spending threshold. We also need to talk about the yield and the extent to which we set the yield at a level that was established a minimum or a floor for spending like we can do this right like the goal should be from equity standpoint and ensuring substantially equal educational opportunities for students across districts in the state is to compress spending. Right, there will be variation but the variation should be really based on differences in need, not necessarily driven by differences in preferences. Because what you're talking what you're getting at is a difference between need and preference. So, in a district that might quote unquote be a high spending district now. And I'm being careful I don't want to say overspending, I'm just saying high spending district, and the equalize people in and through the weights that district. The number of equalize people just comes down. Right.  That's a decision. That's a decision. If the weights are calibrated appropriately. Then that decision should not be a hard one necessarily right, because if the weights are calibrated appropriately, then what we're doing is we're equalizing costs. If the hard decision is do we want to continue spending at this level and our tax rates are going up the conversation should be, are we spending what we should be spending. Right, but we also need guardrails at the top and the bottom on that both in terms of the excess spending threshold and the yield. So that we're being thoughtful about putting district right, keeping, keeping, keeping, keeping a reasonable range so that we don't have districts by virtual preference fallen off the bottom, right, and districts lifting off the top. So that is, that is a unique homegrown Vermont feature right like other states don't have that kind of problem, because they don't have the right, because they have a foundation formula, and we don't have statewide property tax, and you know spending decisions right aren't calibrated entirely on local control. So, you know, to representative back's point yeah these things are all big issues and they need to be right you know this many years into our system, there certainly is room to talk about you know what what's good with bad with ugly at our system. The question is is in the meantime we have a system. And this other conversation could take some time. The question is, what do we do in the meantime. Right, like, do, because the weights are miscalibrated and because of it, we're seeing both unintended and intended effects. Right, and we're seeing perversions that we probably would prefer not to have. I don't represent for you to answer your question. Yeah, I think so I mean, none of these are really answerable but I think so. You know obviously trying to see some things through the lens of my own, my own district and understand how our per pupil spending I believe is slightly below the state average. And yet we would lose a tremendous amount of equalized pupils. And perhaps I don't understand the school budget well enough, but I would imagine most, you know, I should know better because I'm on the school board but it's still hard to know even as a board member. And much of that is teaching is teachers weren't, you know, from years of going through the budget I know we're only within a couple students at most grade levels of EQS that we wouldn't be able to reduce teachers. A whole lot and before we would start to be out of compliance with EQS and teacher class size so I'm starting I'm struggling to see maybe there's some other spending in our district I'm not aware of that's the problem. I'm trying to figure out then how that all does a district even have a choice but to spend a lot more. Because otherwise would we be out of compliance with EQS when it comes to class size, but I also the yield also comes into that calculation to. Yeah. Right and that's why I said like the all of those things that I put on their list are explicit considerations that need to go along with this. Right. I'm going to keep us open. I'm going to keep us open until 1230 and then we'll break, but this is clearly important so representative Hooper I'm going to go back to you. I appreciate that. Now I guess considering the clock we I better hone in on the specifics of s 13 and my curiosity is about your reactions to certain aspects of the bill before us so just going back to your response to representative you said eight months probably is not enough time and further, perhaps we need a, even a second committee to sort of oversee the work of the first one in the immediate and then have. Is that do I clarify my comment. What I'm saying is that if the task is to redesign the entire school funding system in Vermont, then no eight months is not the time. Right. Like there are bigger questions. If the task is to develop is the task is to figure out how to effectively implement the findings in the waiting study, then eight months is enough time. But what you what I see in s 13 right now is a hodgepodge of both right and my concern would be that we will be a mile wide and an inch deep and that at the end of the task force the legislature will not have the information that needs to make either decision. Right. And I mean I say that I say that. Not because I have a preference on which way you decide as policymakers and just being attentive to the fact that we will all be back here in February having a conversation and I know how thoughtful all of you and others in the legislature are trying to be around this and their need for information and clarification around this. And I think that you will feel very frustrated by the fact that you do not have the information you need to make concrete decisions.  If, if the poll, if the question on the table is what to do about the weights. Sure, so that makes sense. It does make sense. You're saying that the bill has a lot of provisions that are more on the studying side of things which you have said is largely completed. I mean, you've got national notoriety for the, for the report that you produced and basically at this point, we just have to figure out how to implement the data that you provided for us, unless we sort of agree with Representative Beck that we kind of have to boil this stuff down. If you're looking for a wholesale change, then, then if that's the policy decision that you want that if that's a direction us legislators want to go, then this needs to be a much bigger group that has more time to work on that. If the policy decision if what you are seeking from the task force is concrete actionable information that will help you in deliberations around the question of whether to, whether and how to make changes to the equalize people calculation, then the task I would suggest respectfully suggested the task force scope needs to be more narrow and focused. And I do think that can be done in the eight month time one. And finally, Professor. Perhaps it would be unfair for me to ask you to to respond to the statements that are honorable guests, Scott back representative back had made but you know I'm curious to know. Indeed, would we have to just start over if what he said is true. I have tons of respect for represented back and I think he has been incredibly thoughtful around issues of school funding, both when he was on the House Committee and education but also in ways and means, and he's also an educator so I, you know, what I would say is representative backs points are well taken around the existing system right like there is a fundamental disconnect between spending right and and revenue generation by by design in our formula. And there's long been discussion and suspicion that that disconnect has been a driver of costs in this state. That is not. That's a different question, and we should be talking about that. Right. That's a different set of questions and a different focus than what we had in the waiting study. And, you know, respectfully what I would say is these are things we should be deliberating right the issues that that represented back brings up our ballot and important and should be considerations. So how we go about deliberating those I don't think that that can happen in eight months and I don't think that that can happen with a task force that is this narrowly sort of constructed and focused. Thank you. I'm sorry that was my penultimate question the ultimate one is what are the consequences of failing to act on on updating the weights. I think you know back to what I was saying my response to representative Brady right like you know the consequences are this right the weights are miscalibrated if the weights are miscalibrated then are then that mechanism which is our primary equity mechanism in the existing formula is not working properly. Full stop right it's not working properly right the weight and the weights are the primary mechanism for equalizing costs across districts. And in that equalization comes incentives and distance centers around spending, which are intended intended to result in adequate levels of spending across all districts in the state and equalizing educational opportunities. So, to the extent of this weight weights are miscalibrated this all of these things that are intended effects. You know, they're, they're, they're happening. It's sort of a hodgepodge out there right like that happens in places they don't have in some other places, and it's creating other kinds of stresses on our system with regard to refugee generation. So, I feel like you might be going down that rabbit hole, you know, do we have a constitutional problem I'm not a legal scholar and so I'm not going to comment on that but what I will say is that this, that the formula as designed, and as intended is not working that way right now, because the weights are miscalibrated that I can say, right, in the report is is clear, like there's frankly there's no wiggle room on that right like the way the weights are miscalibrated. And to the extent that the weights are miscalibrated, then the rest of the formula isn't going to be operating as intended. And so the consequences of that are you have a formula that's not operating as intended, which means it's not achieving all the other goals that are set forth for the formula. I want to thank you so much for joining us today. I think you've, you've helped the committee understand a little bit better. Your recommendations on moving forward. I think the committee will always be concerned, not just about the taxpayer equity and what it might do, but really getting to student equity. And what we know in what students need and what opportunity looks like is having high quality teachers, high quality leadership, and the time, which is what 173 tried to do. And while we're working on that, I do know that this committee has a tremendous interest in the other questions. As I've said repeatedly they're not unimportant questions right like you know, remember that money is money is a means not the ends right like we want to make sure that the fiscal, our fiscal house our fiscal policies are the same as others for all the other really important stuff that happens in schools right like we, and so I think you're exactly right the focus always needs to be on the kids. Right. But we also have to make sure that our fiscal house is in order with respect to how we distribute resources in the adequacy of those resources, so that we can do this piece well over here. So what do you see when act 60 past I think districts just kind of got slammed with the changes. Because we have federal funds that are actually being distributed to districts with with poverty in mind does give those districts a little bit more help than they would normally be used to we have over 400 million going directly to our school systems in the agency of education. Do you see that this perhaps give us give us a little bit more time to get this right as we're moving to transitioning. I guess what I would say this you know a year ago when when you asked that question, you know I think my level of concern around the transition was much greater. You know, the reality is with the federal dollars coming into the state right now. We have, we have a window policy window of opportunity to buffer some of these changes, right, to buffer school districts from some of these changes that we didn't have a year ago, and we know that we have that window open for about two years. That's it right because those don't like their weight right there I respectfully suggest that there are ways to creatively use these federal dollars coming into the state as as as an instrument that can ease a transition with the weights right and we didn't have that option a year ago right and so, you know, interest in and in moving that direction right to actually making the change the policy priority and changing the weights. You know there is a window here for the next two years to leverage federal resources to ease that transition in ways that we did not have opportunities that we did not have a year ago. So I don't know if that answers your question representative web but you know, I think there's, I think there will be constituents that argue that there's urgency with changing the weights because of equity concerns. So that might, that's one sort of timing issue, but also you know with these federal funds and the clock on those funds and the potential for using those funds as to in the transition that adds an added sort of time dimension to this discussion. And so that brings me back to the task force right. You know you've asked the task force to have a report to you in January so you might ask. Next year, right, acting next year would keep you within that federal window right of being able to use some of those dollars, pushing it out a year, maybe not right, maybe not. And there are there are arguments for urgency on both sides. I'm not, I'm being very careful I'm not advocating like these are decisions use policymakers need to make. I want to thank you very much for joining us today. We have a room full of some other people that we will probably be hearing from later but it seemed best for us to just focus on using your time and having the committee of an opportunity to speak with you since you've been so intimately attached to this process. Thank you again for the invitation and to all of you. I feel free to reach out by email I'm always happy to try to respond to specific questions about the report or any aspect of my testimony always happy to do that and I'm always happy to come back again represented web that there are opportunities for other clarifications. Yeah, we may we may be reaching out to you again. Much appreciated. Be well everyone. Thank you so much. We'll be following up later on where we want to go with this. I am going to encourage us to be focused on the task force in our questions as we go forward. Rather than us trying to be adjusting weights and working on that right now I don't think we have the time and expertise to do that. But I think we do have the time and expertise to figure out what a task force would do. And I guess with that, we do not believe that we're meeting after floor and we expect this to be a long floor as I remember. What do we have do we have anybody coming in this afternoon. So just in terms of other other planning. I think that we will be able to pull together the last pieces of S 16 and S 115 to allow us to bring that to committee for a vote on Tuesday. For us to make sure if if we are looking at a potential end date of the legislature by May 10, we need to get our work over to the Senate to give them time, and we need to get our work to other committees. So we're going to have to sort of at some point you just have to say we've completed our work as uncomfortable as that is for a committee to move that on to either ways and means or appropriations. So, we repeat that I was, I was still reading waiting things you repeat what you just said about 16. I'm hoping that we can pull that together. That felt, you know, a last, last draft to get that before the committee. I'm not sure what's going to happen with time tomorrow. I'm hoping that we're going to be able to meet. We've got a long floor. I'm hoping that we can get that ready. I'm inclined to vote out on Tuesday. And give folks folks a chance. So, that's kind of where we are at this point, in terms of what the remaining questions I know that representative Brady you were working on that. We're waiting to hear from the agency on some of the work they're doing relation test test. I have those, we have those now so I'll, and Jim has them so I'll connect with him and so we should have the updated drafts Tuesday I'm sure people will continue to lob changes but yeah. If it's possible to get any of those to us before the weekend that would be great. Okay. And it's my intention that we're going to be able to vote for it, even if it's not perfect. Because it is going to money committees. In addition, we're looking at the current bill that we've talked about today. I would like to make sure that this bill has an opportunity to get to ways and means, because it does affect the Ed fund, or maybe it does maybe it doesn't. But want them to have an opportunity to weigh in on this so I'm hoping that we can move that to the other committee, perhaps by the end of next week. Representative back do you have anything that you wanted to add at this point. I don't. I don't. Thank you for including me in the conversation. And so I thought I heard you say you're trying to move it out Tuesday. No, I think 13 will probably try to move out Friday. Okay. We just got these other bills that we have to have to work and work with and then we have to present all these bills on the floor so. So, my intention would be that we would finish that up at the end of the week and get it to you. But we would appreciate having you join us as we're working on that. We're after S 53 today we're a little quiet houseways and means hopefully I'll be able to join you as much as possible. Yeah, that sounds great. So I will be presenting as 114 to appropriations shortly and hoping that we can get that to the floor tomorrow or Tuesday, Tuesday Wednesday is another option.  Excuse me. Yes. Thanks. I know everybody's going to kill me for talking about potentially adding someone to a task force. But I chair web I don't know how you want me to approach this but I had a pretty compelling email exchange last night about some testimony we'd heard last week about adding a master's level social worker to the wellness council. Would you talk to about that. Okay, would you be willing to reach out to Ted Fisher because I know that he was looking at that I believe and just just because this this task force I mean this this group. The wellness I don't think that's been active I think that was my understanding purpose of Coopley you were there when Ted was speaking that that's been kind of a dormant at this point. Yes. Yes. Yeah, I would reach out to Ted. For his thought on that. Okay, great. Thanks. In addition, we definitely heard from the superintendents about striking them from the work group. They were not happy with being struck from the work group related to I think it was a 16 wasn't it. Yes. Thank you. Thank you to me that, you know, because they're kind of the CEO of the whole thing that they should be involved. So my recommendations that we're going to put that back in. Okay, we're going to add one back in. Okay, with everybody. Great. And other than that, I think those bills are getting ready to go. It's possible to get us 16. I'm still following up on your question about libraries I'm not sure if I've heard back yet represent Boston. Thank you. Okay. Thank you everybody.