SmartTranscript of HWM/HEd 2025-3-12

[Emilie Kornheiser]: Good morning. This is a joint hearing of health education and health, boys, and means. We are here with folks from the agency of education to dive deeper into particular such situation of special education, both because it is one of the fastest more [Speaker 1 ]: fast growing expenses in the education [Emilie Kornheiser]: funds. It's a great example of past reforms that we have tried to do that have not gone exactly as we anticipated. And it is a place in the foundation formula that we think a little more work it's well, I guess, more work is needed on all of it, but it's an area of foundation formula we'd like to [Justin Silverstein]: do some more work on. [Meg Porcella]: So glad to have folks here from AOE, and I'm happy to [Emilie Kornheiser]: turn it over to you, and then we can make sure we have lots of time for questions. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: Good morning, folks. For the record, Jill Briggs Campbell, interim deputy secretary. Unfortunately, Zoe was not able to attend. She had an emergency that came up about half an hour ago, So she asked me to step in. I'll let the agency folks, both here and in virtual land, [Speaker 5 ]: can [Jill Briggs Campbell]: see themselves. And then we also have, two, of our, kind of, partners or experts, from APA. So you all know Justin and Amanda from APA, and then we're also joined by Nate Levinson from New Solutions, who has a great deal of experience in special education as well. So Meg, I'll go over to you. Hi. Hi. [Meg Porcella]: Good morning. For the record, I'm Meg Porcella. I'm the director of the student support services division at the agency of education, and that division houses the special education. And Sean? [Sean Cousinow]: Hi. Sean Cousinow, the, interim CFO at FAU. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: And, Cassie, if you'd like to, introduce yourself. [Cassie Santo]: Hi, everyone. Cassie Santo, state director of special education. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: And, Amanda and Justin, if you'd like to introduce yourselves. [Justin Silverstein]: Justin Silversteiner with APA Consulting. [Amanda Brown]: Amanda Brown also with APA. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: And, Nate, last but not least. [Nate Levinson]: Sure. Good morning. Nate Levinson. New solutions k twelve. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: So I can just provide some brief kind of opening and framing remarks, and then I'll I'll kick it off to, the agency team. So as we've indicated, and I think, as rep Farnheiser kind of laid out, special education is a major area of strategic focus for the agency of education, both in completing the implementation of Act one hundred and seventy three, but also as we look forward to education and information in whatever form that that, sort of arrives at, in this building. We have really focused on the fact that we recognize that special education is a major cost driver in our system, but also that in order to address those pressures on education funding system, we first and sort of foremost have to improve the quality of delivery in terms of special education across the state. And so, Meg and Cassie will be speaking to the work that's well underway, to support kind of that improvement of quality. We, as as Rep. Fornheuser signaled in the proposal for the foundation formula, we were very transparent that we had sort of bracketed out special education with the recognition of carrying some of those costs while that work is being done. Because it's critical that we're not undermining and cutting from that system as the transformation and and sort of improvement of quality is happening across the system. I'd also signal that it's long been diagnosed in the state that there is an issue of scale as well. So whatever that scale is that, as I said, whatever sort of is is landed on in this building, there is a recognition that, operating at our current scale, it's very challenging for districts and schools to attract special educators, to be able to provide professional development for the general classroom instructors, and we'll be talking a lot about that today, for having statewide and regional resources to improve the quality of special education. The folks in this building really recognizing that passed the BOCES bill last year, and that work is underway. We actually just recert received our first draft articles of agreement earlier this week, from one of the proposed BOCES. So we're actually in the process of reviewing that. So I think, as we're having this conversation about funding and scale, really, again, that three legged stool is really keeping quality front and center. So what we're going to be talking about today is an overview of special education funding, which Sean will be leading and Amanda may call on you to offer any clarification as we're working through the slides. And then Meg and Cassie will be really talking about how are we going to achieve that quality delivery of special education, and sort of improving our overall delivery of education, and what is the work that's already underway, in the agency and and in the field. Just as with many of our other initiatives, we have systems that are doing this well. So as we saw on literacy, we had some systems that were really ahead of folks in terms of improving literacy instruction with chronic absenteeism and we've been able to identify those systems as well. We know that there are some systems in our in the state that are more effective at this, and we do have some other models, and and Nate Levinson can speak to this, further on in the conversation, of states who actually took our work and implemented it. So we can get in a a sense of how did they achieve that, but then also what what have their results been. So part of the work that we need to do is really identifying which systems are doing this effectively, how are we measuring that, and then how do we amplify and bring that to scale. As you've heard us talk ad nauseam for the last couple of months, is that one of the critical issues in the system of education is we have real disparities in terms of quality across kind of the whole state. How do we actually use scale, use governance and funding, and, support to ensure that that quality is happening everywhere? So I would stop talking at this point. Sean, I'm gonna pass over to you and and, if you can project for the people behind [Meg Porcella]: this as [Jill Briggs Campbell]: well. I apologize for the folks who are behind us. Oh, there's also a wild extra white noise situation. There is happening right there. Yeah. Okay. [Speaker 5 ]: We've got three or [Sean Cousinow]: four slides on, especially with expenditures. The first one we're showing, shows the percentage of special ed students over, you know, overall in the state, from twenty by twenty you know, slight increase, going up to eighteen point six percent, two years ago. The next slide, we have special ed spending. [Justin Silverstein]: Woah. Yep. [Speaker 10 ]: You go through can you put this in the context of national data? I mean, I know Vermont is not as economically disadvantaged as many other states, but we have a higher rate of identification. And I wondered if you could speak to the trends in our data and what that might say. [Sean Cousinow]: I can't talk on national levels. Others might be able to. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: Okay. So if can we run through sort of this section, pause for questions? Is that an effective way [Speaker 1 ]: to do this? Are are you okay? [Emilie Kornheiser]: Yes. And I think the question about putting this in context both of national data and, national action. Not just, like, the way the world is changing very fast, political actions. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: Okay. Do you mean, like, DC context? Yes. Okay. Great. [Emilie Kornheiser]: So those two things, if that's not something that can happen today, can we sort of follow-up on that would be a little Okay. [Meg Porcella]: Yeah. Okay. [Sean Cousinow]: So this next slide shows the special ed spending per special ed student, and it also shows the source of the funding. So we're looking at just over ninety percent coming from state and local money, mostly state money, I would say. Federal has about eight percent, and then there's a small portion of other funding that the districts use to fund education or special education. And it looks like in f y twenty three, the school district spent four hundred and thirty seven point five million on special ed. [Speaker 10 ]: What does local money mean in this country? [Sean Cousinow]: When we in the uniform chart of accounts, we kinda lump together state and local money. There's really very little local money, I would say. Districts may categorize tuition. They're getting from other districts as local. But they might not? Yeah. I'm not I'm not sure. That was just an example that came up. So we don't really have a way to break it out because we we we show it. The the code that tracks the type of funding is called. [Speaker 10 ]: Okay. I [Sean Cousinow]: We'd have to dig into it through a different code probably to to show it. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: But I I just have no sense [Emilie Kornheiser]: of what local could like, what any examples of local might need in terms of funding. So that's where my conclusion. [Justin Silverstein]: Yeah. Nice. [Amanda Brown]: This is Amanda Brown. I would say, give us just a couple slides. We have a slide on, funding sources for special education that I think can give some little more context for that. But local can be include things like tuition, as Sean mentioned. It can also be just funding, that they're using out of the their general fund, so education fund dollars that they are using for special education services. So there are a series of funds that are targeted for special education, but when there's a gap in what they have available from, say, state and federal funding sources, they are then supplementing with local dollars. So, again, tuition, general education fund dollars for special. [Emilie Kornheiser]: I'm happy to go on. I'm confused by the use of the word could rather than something more definitive. [Justin Silverstein]: Yeah. [Meg Porcella]: Because that [Emilie Kornheiser]: What Like, sort of the possibility that something might be something definitionally doesn't get me any closer to understanding what it is. I'm sorry. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: No. That's [Amanda Brown]: that's a good question. And it is a do. It it sorry. I shouldn't use could. [Speaker 1 ]: It is. [Amanda Brown]: Of course. [Emilie Kornheiser]: And the differentiation between what I hear you saying, Amanda, is a differentiation between local and state funding is differentiation between education spending and edge fund spending that's not education spending. And that is not what I think of as local spending. So that is if that is what you're saying, that is, I think, helpful context for us to set before we launch into this. [Amanda Brown]: Yeah. So from I would say it's, in most states, you are making a strong distinction between what state and local. That doesn't I understand that. In Vermont set of because of the way your funding system works. So this slide in particular was just to try to identify that very little of your special education funding is funding byfunded by the fed IRRRL, IDA funds, and the remainder is picked up from essentially all dollars in Vermont or state dollars, but state slash local. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: Okay. Thank you. So can I can I ask a question? I mean, because this is is one of those places where the complexity of our system always boggles my mind. But Mhmm. So when we're talking about special education funding, we're talking about, in my mind, three different buckets. We're talking about federal dollars, IDEA, etcetera. We're talking about the what I would in what I called our categorical sort of state block grants. Right? So the census block, there's, essential early childhood. There's a few other things. Right? State placed students. And then there are the decisions that are made in local in the development of local budgets that get voted on a town meeting day, that are, in some ways, making up the gap between the actual cost of providing special education and what the sort of state categorical grants and the federal grants are providing. [Emilie Kornheiser]: So I think you left out the category of the extraordinary special education, which is one of the best growing areas. And so Yeah. I think if we are looking at redoing all of the financing, making sure we're clear on all that loss count, but are we at five buckets? You would start with four and I edit once. Five. It's five buckets. Right? Yeah. So education spending, extraordinary, block grants, etcetera. Here's the next list. [Amanda Brown]: Yep. No. That's what I was gonna say. We we do have a slide here that shows what we bucketed is for. I think you could, make your buckets a little different, but your IDA is that top one. Your state special education formula grants, which for FY twenty five total, about two sixty five million, which includes that census block grant, the extraordinary reimbursement. Then there's, some other grants that are in there, but your census block and your extraordinary are the two biggest one. There's other state grants, outside of the the formula grants for special ed, including the early childhood special education or EEE is another way it's referred to, of about nine million dollars And then there is another allocation for state plate students for the special education costs specifically for those students. So those are two other state grants that, outside of the formula grants that target special education. Then other sources of funding used, which is getting into that what else is in that state and local category. General fund, which would bewhen wewhen we say general fund, we mean districts general funds or SU's general funds, not thethe state's general fund. So, this is really your education fund dollars. Tuition, they're also using Medicaid for another federal source that's being used, and then other state grants. So, looking at the data, I've seen things like, flexible pathways has shown up, and a couple other state grants that are for purposes that are not specifically for special education but can be used on special education students. So those are what's making up the, as Jill was saying, that gap between what are they spending on special education and what are the funds that are specifically directed either federal or state for special education? [Jill Briggs Campbell]: So, it's like the education funding ecosystem to support the provision of special education services. And I didn't mean to derail the presentation. [Emilie Kornheiser]: I wanted to define terms as we started. And, I'm gonna give it back to you, Sean. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: Alright. Can I ask are there questions? Because I'm I'm seeing a lot of at the corner of my eye, it seems like a lot of questions. So if we need to establish some basics. No. I think we're good. Okay. Thank you, Sean. Okay. [Emilie Kornheiser]: Oh, sorry. You're, like, way in [Jill Briggs Campbell]: that corner. I'm so sorry. Go ahead. [Speaker 10 ]: Can you give me [Jill Briggs Campbell]: a definite maybe general or maybe specific what you mean by special education expenditures? Are we talking about the personnel that are involved with students who are identified? Students with IEPs. I'm sorry. Students with an IEP, an individualized education plan. So the personnel, and are there other services that are related to working with those students? Yes. Yeah. So consulting services, the the, case management, all all sorts of various things. The speech [Meg Porcella]: language pathologist, the the, behavioral, the BCBA. Sorry. I shouldn't be speaking in acronyms, but that's where my brain went. Like so, the yeah. So those interventionists could also fall into that [Justin Silverstein]: Kevin. And with those students. Yeah. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: And I think it's always important. We're we're gonna be talking about two things today. We're talking about funding, which is very much grounded in coats, accounting coats. Right? So how do we identify with a special education FAST is, is if it's coded as such in district accounting, right, and they're supposed to be using uniform chart of accounts, right, and they code things to special education. So we're not guessing that it's for a special education service. We the districts are the ones telling us that it's a cost for special education. And then on the flip side, there's the programmatic activities that support students on IPs. And that is can be a whole variety of things. So we have to sort of, talk about both things today. When we're talking about these slides, we're talking about what is coded outside in sort of the accounting systems. Does that help to distinguish a little bit? That helps. Okay. [Sean Cousinow]: Okay. I'll I'll back up one. I think this is the one we skipped. So this slide shows, what the percentage of is of special ed spending, versus overall spending at the districts. And, there was a drop in twenty, we've kinda stayed kinda level at nineteen percent for the last last three years. So even though special ed spending is going up, it's keeping, I guess, pace with the overall spending for education. At the district level. Yes. Yep. And I think we already talked about this slide, and that's it for the finance data slides anyways. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: Do we wanna pause for questions around the actual kind of funding? [Meg Porcella]: Think we're good. Thank you. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: Yeah. And I was I was actually going to Amanda, do you have anything you want to add? I know you've been very deep in the weeds on some of this data. [Amanda Brown]: No. I I think we we've covered it well. We the only thing I was gonna add on when we look at, say, special education costs as a percentage of budgets to keep in mind just during this window is when there was a lot of extra federal dollars through ESSER that were available that weren't necessarily targeting special education. So as we go forward, we may see that special education is a larger piece of the budget once those dollars, come away. But so, I think, Jill, you reiterated really well where thethe data was coming from for those pieces. So, the first couple slides were thinking about what is being spent and coded for special education. This slide is then focused on what is the state, and the federal government appropriating for special education services and thinking starting to think about as you build a funding system, what's that differential between what's being spent in your districts and your SUs and SDs versus the funding that's available? [Meg Porcella]: And is there a sort of [Emilie Kornheiser]: a slide that pairs the previous slides with this one, which is how much is spent out of each of these funding sources and how has that changed? [Amanda Brown]: We do not have that available right now, but we could follow-up with more detail there making that comparison. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: So it so I wanna make sure we have the data request. So for each of the sort of funding ecosystem, you're you'd be interested in trend lines? [Emilie Kornheiser]: Yeah. I think a lot of, very early on this conversation, perhaps even before we began a conversation about the governor's transformation proposal, we were concerned about extraordinary special education as just one piece of this and getting closer to the roots of why those costs have gone up gone up so much. Mhmm. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: And are we going to [Emilie Kornheiser]: Taken the federal context, there's a question about how much of this is Medicaid dependent, but I think all of that would be and then if we're gonna redo formulas Yeah. Understanding how each of the pieces of the existing formula applies to the overall spending would be very helpful, including how much general funds how much district general fund dollars outside of these grantors not on us. Yeah. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: And we have sort of a we've been working with business managers to refine that number, that district number, and ensuring that we're all working from kind of the same dataset and analysis. So we're actually deep into that right now with some business managers. And just that reminder, in terms of the the COVID era funds, we are now living this year, the budget, when those funds expired in September. So we don't have an answer yet for what does this look like because we're actually living that budget right now, but we'll be able to do that additional analysis. Okay. So I have that as a [Speaker 10 ]: representative. Madam Chair, I was hoping we could also just amend the data request a little bit because as you said so clearly, the services are driven by the IEPs. And so the school districts are obligated to provide the IEPs services, and the state is currently using education dollars as the state match to pull down Medicaid. And it would be very helpful to know actually how much Medicaid we are pulling down by using Ed Bucks as the state match and how that's been changing over some time because that is a contractual obligation. If those funds are removed, all of those costs are being held back from the education fund. So I actually think we actually do need those dollars as well. And, also, it would be helpful to know how the decision to shift from bundled services to bundled rates has impacted the fund as well with respect to. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: Okay. That's really helpful. From the dozen communities. See if I can interpret my own handwriting later. But Thank you. Okay. So when [Meg Porcella]: I was asked to prepare just a couple of things, secretary Saunders wanted me to talk about act one seventy three of twenty eighteen and how that fits into the conversation that we're having and where we are, especially in my division of student support services in improving outcomes for students with IEPs, but then all students who have who struggle, who who need additional supports around things. So there's it's like a jump cut to a complete type of different set of class. They don't Yep. We're ready to find. Okay. It's sort of [Jill Briggs Campbell]: the programmatic, how to make the difference improves quality. Yeah. [Meg Porcella]: And so sorry to ask this, but it you're getting pretty. Oh, I'm sorry. [Justin Silverstein]: I was [Jill Briggs Campbell]: like, you've never known me to be. [Speaker 10 ]: Thank you old. They would [Jill Briggs Campbell]: make your joy. It's new. [Meg Porcella]: So, I'm starting with a very old slide that came from the district management group way back in twenty nineteen when, the district management group's report came out, I think, right after act one seventy three was enacted. And this is this slide is important because it shows in this Venn diagram. When we talk about students who need additional support, we are talking about students with IEPs, but we're also talking about a lot of other students. And the important distinction is even though we are talking about special education funding, [Justin Silverstein]: the [Meg Porcella]: the need to support all kids doesn't live in special education alone. And so that's what this slide sort of exemplifies, and it undergirds where we are, with, the goals of act one seventy three and, making sure we're supporting all kids. So, with students who struggle to read and comprehend, students who have skill deficits from the prior grades, many, you know, multiple modes of instruction, many learn and process information in different ways. We know there is no standard brain. Right? All brains are unique. So that's sort of what this slide shows us. [Speaker 10 ]: I do that. Is that [Meg Porcella]: yep. Okay. So then the district management group put out their their report, and we came away with these five best practices. And these we didn't. They did. They outlined these. But these best practices are ones that, those of us who are in education, we read and go, yes. We recognize that this confirms what a lot of us teachers, educators, we know, that that core instruction, the instruction that happens in the classroom, needs to be, designed so that it meets the needs of most students. Additional instructional time intervention, that additional instruction needs to happen outside of the core instruction, not in in lieu of in we speak in addition to. And, also, for our well, for all kids, it shouldn't also take the place of a special or recess, but be built into the to the schedule so that is an additional instructional time. Students who struggle need to receive their instruction from highly skilled teachers. The instruction needs to happen from highly skilled personnel. There needs to be a systems wide support to pro to supporting positive student behaviors. And, also, the the student with the most intensive needs need to have that specialized instruction from skilled and trained experts. So that goes to the the additional service providers that we're talking about. So these five things, we recognize that that they're important. They are, part of our education quality standards because it's just good practice. But but these five best practices, we we called them the DMG opportunities, and we still use them today to to make sure that when we're providing technical assistance or or talking about what what's important to us, you know, at the AOE, they always go back to some of these, and you'll hear many of these echoed in the current policies that the AOE is rolling out. So in very simple terms, there were some four ish goals of, that one seventy three. The big one is to ensure that all students who struggle are provided with best practices and instruction and intervention by highly skilled educators. So that is that means ensuring that there is a viable curriculum that would that systems, districts, and schools, and classrooms are using formative assessment are using assessments formatively, that there's a strong assessment system, that and that doesn't that those assessments are used to provide actionable, feedback, that student progress data is being collected and used to improve outcomes for all students. So the second one was reduce the need for special education evaluations and paperwork. And and this would result from if we are able to implement well those five district management group practices, then more students who struggle would be identified and helped and served in those gen ed spaces and and would wouldn't need to have that special education evaluation. The mindset shift of of in order for a student to receive some kind of special intervention, they first need to be evaluated and and given an IEP is not accurate. Like, we we can intervene right away and be proactive, and that's that was part of the ACLA seventy three's goals. Act one seventy three changed our funding model from a reimbursement to a census block grant, and that was the first part of the conversation. And then Act one seventy three also gave us the opportunity to open rules, special education rules and independent school rules. And the result was the special ed rules were opened and several changes we believe, and same thing with our independent schools. I I Oh, I'm so sorry. [Speaker 10 ]: I think you watch a state board meeting, and what's came out of state board meeting is that the state board had revised the rules for independent schools to [Jill Briggs Campbell]: require that they either have [Speaker 10 ]: a special educator under contract or to have a special educator on staff. Yes. And the agency implemented an alternative process that just required them to watch a module or somebody on-site to watch a module and then self attest that they were ready. And I believe that it had indicated that it would revise that practice to conform with [Meg Porcella]: the goal. And I wonder if [Speaker 10 ]: you could tell us how many schools may have been approved to receive students with disabilities who didn't either have a special educator on staff or a special educator under contract, and whether that situation has been resolved or are we still funding schools that don't need? [Meg Porcella]: I'm not able to answer that question directly. I don't have that data in front of me. I will say that the pause that happened in our let's see what I'm looking for. The approval process? Yeah. Approval process. Thank you very much. For independent schools, we'll be able for us to address exactly what you're talking about. Because I actually believe that we have like, the the pause that's happened gets at what you're referring to. But to confirm, [Speaker 10 ]: we may currently funding schools Uh-huh. That do not meet the standard of either having a special educator on board. [Meg Porcella]: On board. Yeah. Yep. Well, I'm I'm very happy to check into that. And and maybe [Speaker 10 ]: if you could also tell us what risk that puts LEAs at because they're counting on to and it's not approval, but who is liable if a student's IEP is not met in settings? [Meg Porcella]: Right. So the the LEA is responsible for ensuring, but the state is ultimately liable. That's our it's our job to make sure that the LEAs are meeting the needs of all students' IEDs. So I think that we could do a follow-up in [Jill Briggs Campbell]: Absolutely. Going back to our in the school team and getting the the specific data that you were requesting. And and then we can follow-up with [Speaker 10 ]: That's the follow-up. Now could you confirm my understanding is that wherever students place, we're required to provide them with access to create appropriate public education. Is that correct? Indeed. And so if we are placing a student in a school that does not conform to [Justin Silverstein]: the [Speaker 10 ]: education following standards, can we can we know if those students have access to faith? Can I ask a clarifying question? [Jill Briggs Campbell]: So faith and education quality standards to me are two different sets. Can you [Speaker 10 ]: think education is our definition of public education in full? And so that is what we are guaranteed to provide students in the public's field. In our statute or in our current role, we hold independent schools accountable to a basic human standard that was set in the eighties and is not equivalent to the education policy standards. Some in ten people far see that far see that. Some do not. And my question is if we are placing students in schools that do not meet the education following standards, are we can we say that we are providing those students with access to faith? I couldn't help from getting answer to that. And in in in that thing, when we place students, like, we have some issues. I know we always see the ones here in the paper. For example, when we have clubs, my understanding is that they didn't have a session. I didn't hear us now. And how do we provide in in therapeutic for profit settings, how do we provide students with access to the kinds of specialized instruction that you're talking about in one seventy three Mhmm. If they don't even have a special educator on staff in a therapeutic setting. [Meg Porcella]: Yeah. So the answer for our current state or what happened has happened over the past three years, Happy to, see what data we have. I can say that for where we are now and moving forward, that is, absolutely, something that our state director will be talking about because we are developing options for ensuring that our students are IEPs who are, placed in, independent school therapeutic setting. Think my question is different. If the rules don't conform to federal law, how can you build processes conform to federal law? I think that's the question. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: I think it's worthwhile for us to provide some written testimony on that. And and just sort of that reminder of kind of my opening remarks was that secretary Saunders has identified the improvement around the special education, including the independent schools as an area of strategic focus for the agency. And so it it might be helpful then to move to as you move to your your comments to then hear from our state director on special education and and the steps that we're taking right now. And then we can also circle back around on the independent students because we have actually taken significant steps to make, improvements to that process that are on your side. So you can provide an update, different topic for each of these. [Speaker 5 ]: Think I was around for the creation of Act one seventy three. I'm a big believer in it. And as I look at sort of the four goals, I know we did three and four. But has it lived up to its promise to reduce the need for special education evaluation and paperwork when the whole idea was to pull away from the bead counting that went on and to be able to target the block grants at all students who might be struggling. Just anecdotally, what I hear is the bead counting still has to go on, that we that that has not that sort of goal has not been matched. [Meg Porcella]: And, I actually had it in my notes but didn't say out loud. One of the things that we were not able to promise was that our federal bean counting, we aren't allowed to change to to that point. So, I think that there might anecdotally also, there might have been a conflation between what we were able to say, you don't have to do paperwork wise, and what the reality was. I will I will say though that to that point, number two, the work that we began is is work that we're still trying to make more actionable for sure. [Speaker 5 ]: My my understanding actually was it was to remove in being counted, including the federal being counted. [Meg Porcella]: But we we can't we we don't have the that's not available to us. We can't undo, like, we can't ignore the federal rules. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: But I I do think that what Meg was sort of pointing out earlier is that we have a a as as rep Holcomb pointed out, a fairly high identification rate in the state. And, also, act one seventy three is not solely about special education. It's about supporting all students who struggle. And that by putting in place these best practices, my understanding is the theory of actions, you would actually reduce the number of students to go through the identification process for an individual education bar. Right? That would also reduce the accounting. We also are having multiple conversations right now. There's also IT debt and data infrastructure across the system. Right? Again, complexity, a lot of different district systems, you know, integration that's happening at state level and what can we plan for as part of, moving to a more efficient and streamlined scale that would also reduce the kind of administrative burden down at the district level. So those are also, like, nuts and bolts mechanical issues that we need to address. That's that's a I mean, but collectively. I I don't mean the agency. I mean, we as a system have many, many different data systems that are not the plumbing isn't hooked up. They're not integrated with each other in ways that create a lot of administrative burden. Very brief example is our Medicaid system and our IEP system in none of our districts is is talking to each other. So the work that the Medicaid program person is doing here, there is other work that's happening over here on IEPs. Those two systems don't talk to each other. We should be able to make improvements in that area. We're having those conversations now, but that also involves the districts. So there's we, the collective, we have work to do to integrate our data systems and improve them. There's a lot of just technical debt. [Emilie Kornheiser]: Going back to one seventy three, [Sean Cousinow]: Did [Justin Silverstein]: so we had a question about data transfer rules. We've had a question about the beam counting. [Emilie Kornheiser]: Has there been more sort of I don't wanna call it prevention, but early intervention. Thank you. Has that resulted in having fewer students identified? [Jill Briggs Campbell]: We had our data on the percent of students that were identified at the beginning. I think it's it's going up. Yeah. [Meg Porcella]: I think your question is predicated on have we can we say that that there's been a proactive or earlier like, it's has core instruction improved in in simple terms? And I don't know that we can say that. I think that we're coming out from the pandemic Yep. And and the the proposal, you know, moving forward. I think that's why when Zoey's when secretary Saunders started, it was an urgent emergent sense around education. And and so I think these are all tied in together. [Emilie Kornheiser]: I think I'm asking because often I think one of the hardest things in our work is that, well, most of the time, we don't even know if something actually worked or not that we did. Correct. And I think that's true in this case, the one seventy three. I think there's the next question of did it not work because it wasn't implemented the way it was designed? Did it not work because the actual period change was incorrect? Did not not work because it wasn't funded adequately or did it not work because global forces are stronger than local forces? And the answer might be yes all four. But I like I'm just I think that. I think we all have that sense but it's a sense and it's not I don't feel like we've had a deliberative discovery towards that sense. Sure. I I just [Meg Porcella]: wonder if if saying that that that Equin seventy three implementation didn't work. I don't wanna say that either. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: I'm but I because I just yes. Yeah. I I [Meg Porcella]: I think we can say that across Vermont, are can we assure that the majority of students are receiving the education that they need in a core class? But I do know that what what the intention of of the current plan is to make sure that we're able to measure that. Because I don't I don't I think that the to what Joe was talking about, we have data data bits that come in around, this the our education snapshot from multiple different places, that maybe aren't all aligned to, just a couple of targeted, metrics. And that is that is something that we are wanting to address and adjust and change so that we can say, here's how we know what we're doing well so that we're not just being lucky, that we're leading that. And I I I agree that being able to measure the goals of act one seventy three, I think we're getting there right before the pandemic hit, and then everything changed. And and even the our our important buckets changed because of that. Not that I wanna blame everything on the pandemic. [Emilie Kornheiser]: I mean, there's a lot changed. Yeah. [Meg Porcella]: Yeah. But I'm I'm just thinking about, you know, what what was important to the things we were talking about at the the AOE at the time. [Speaker 10 ]: I'm wondering I'm trying to [Emilie Kornheiser]: I I think that we're trying to get too many different things out of this year. And one of them is That's true. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: Right? One of them is that we're [Emilie Kornheiser]: engaged in massive education transformation. It would be good to have lessons learned from a previous education transformation provided this one. There's a second. How do we make sure that this education transformation actually meets the needs of special education students and funding? Right? And then there's a third piece about just making sure that kids receiving special education services today and tomorrow are okay. Right? Yeah. And that's a lot of purposes from one hearing. So I'm Yeah. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: And I I think that maybe as we move over to, when Cassie sort of speaking to the work that's underway, I think that may actually help us. Right? So, as we sort of move from a historical perspective and the state of the state and where we are now, I think it's helpful to then pivot again. This is an area of strategic prioritization for leadership in the agency, and here is the work that is underway and what we plan to do. And I I think it's also sort of important to to state with clarity that regardless of what happens in this body, this will continue to be an area of strategic focus for the agency. And if I could just respond to one thing that you just said. [Meg Porcella]: Everything that that we know is important is has been happening in, I don't wanna say in pockets of the of the AOE, but maybe in a in a manner that's that's challenging to see as a whole. And so we do know of some initiatives where we are looking at those elements of the district management group and supporting students on IUPs and all students who struggle and looking at data to see how effective they're being. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: And I think integration within to this the agency's strategic plan that you all know is underdeveloped. Right? So How do we move from pockets and silos within the agency and in the field? This is work that's underway in the field to greater or lesser extent, improving classroom instructions, work that districts can do. Right? Improving their schedule work that districts can do, and some are are underway with this. Right? So how do we actually, through strategic planning within the agency, bring this work together and really prioritize and resource it in a way where we can implement with fidelity and rigor. I think that's something you're pointing to is we're trying to evaluate something that's midstream. And so how do we identify clear measurable goals, implement them with fidelity and rigor and measure. Right? That is something you've heard from us multiple times, I think, probably every session that we've locked in the door. This is work that's underway. Right? And it's not a flip the switch, but a lot of the groundwork has been laid and a lot of the work is already happening. How do we bring coherence and politics to it and measure? So representative Brady has something. Representative Fulcom, I'm gonna ask you [Speaker 1 ]: if it's okay to hold for [Emilie Kornheiser]: a couple minutes, and I'm gonna try to give you a chance to get through more of your. [Speaker 1 ]: I I have probably a more nuts and bolts question and then kind of really appreciate what you just said about work that's midstream. So if I go back to the census block grant advisory group that has been you know, in their final report of recommendations, we've been getting updates for as long as I've been in the legislature. One of the recommendations was a clear mechanism for ongoing monitoring and supportive MTSS implementation. It's just much of what we've been Is it fair by understanding that that doesn't entirely exist yet? [Meg Porcella]: So it doesn't exist excuse me, statewide. And also, yeah, there are there's a really great initiative that's happening. And I would be happy to talk about it because I'm the director of the state development grant. Have me back. The Vermont's multi tiered system support framework is probably something you've heard about. We talked about it several times. Right? Megan Roy was one of the authors of that. So making making that something that that we can measure how well districts are doing to that Mhmm. Did not happen immediately when after act one seven seven. We went with those systems levers, part of the education quality standards. So, anyway but but measuring how well a system at a district level, school level, classroom level is able to achieve that framework, yeah, is critical. It'd be very helpful for us. Agree. I [Speaker 1 ]: guess I I appreciate your your comments to your, and and, you know, your characterization too. I think it's not a surprise. I guess I almost just wanna call out. Like, I think we're all wrestling a lot in this moment with things that we have tried to do. And and I'm bringing this up because I can see we're about to jump to the next, you know, slide and the transformation proposal. And so I'm I'm sort of trying to wrap my brain around, you to what extent do we put more change on a system for good purposes? And we might disagree a little bit about what some of those are, but I think there's a lot of broad agreement about changes needed. And how does that potentially endanger big systems work and reform that has existed? And the implementation is hard for a lot of reasons and is longer, and the legislature has a short attention span. I certainly own that. But and COVID played a huge role. But the implementation of and the potential for for Act one hundred and seventy three, I I shared shared comments really, you know, believe in it strongly, and it feels like such important unfinished work. There's nothing more critical to improving our system than improving core instruction. And so I'm a little worried about our, some of the degree and level or speed of the transformation pieces in some ways continuing to put a real roadblock on work that is underway that is really important, that has maybe been slower for a variety of reasons. I I [Meg Porcella]: just don't see them as being separate, but Yeah. I I might, you know, just not trying to be contrary. I I think that that improving core instruction means many of the things that that we've been talking about. And I just have a couple of things on this slide that we've heard secretary Saunders and and Jill Zoe and Jill talk about. And I bulleted out how they relate to one seventy three and those like, it it they're good best practices because they're the best practices. Right? And so I I don't see this as we're shifting gears away from one thing to another thing. I see it as this is the true line, and this is where we are now. And and this looks like the way that that we're going to really see movement in the way that we would have hoped that we would would have seen movement back in twenty eighteen. The the data the educator prep preparation, I put bullets in here about supporting effective master schedules. One of the elements of our, MTSS framework is is around effective collaboration. But we know that kids need time for their instruction. The educators, the adults need time. It needs to be sacred. It needs to be protected. I I'm sure if you know a teacher, you know that they do some of their best talking with their colleagues in the hallway. It can't be the case. And ensuring that there's equitable access to other service providers. Like so all of those are ensuring. How are we doing that? I think that's the thing that we have to be able to say, here is the plan. That's our strategic plan. And then in a a year, we'll be able to say, here's how we did against that. I do not think we had this setup, this this type of intentionality in twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen. But I I do agree that it's the same work. [Speaker 1 ]: I I but I totally agree with you. I guess I'm concerned about that through line and the capacity of if, you know, these are recommendations from the the statewide group two years ago around some pretty specific things just for MTSS monitoring and support and intervention. And if we haven't been able to or the agency hasn't been able to to fully actualize that two years ago. But now we're talking about much, much, much, much bigger. I I worry about, you know, the the capacity of the agency to implement the level of change. And then, of course, [Meg Porcella]: I see, you know, the impact on [Speaker 1 ]: the field and and instability is not good kids or system. So that's I'll I'll leave it at that. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: And I think a couple of quick comments there. I I actually think that's a a really fair concern to to raise, and I I appreciate it. I think that there are systems level barriers that exist because of the challenges of our scale at every level of the system. So whenever I'm talking about scale, I mean everybody. Right? And I I do think that our districts have articulated we talked about this a lot, so I don't want to sort of beat it at a horse here. But, you know, we've talked about the challenges of being able to hire end staff. We know that we have a really increasing number of educators on provisional and emergency licenses. So we have simultaneously this, like, workforce shortage, but also these very small processes. Right? So we we've talked about scale issues. And if what we know is the number one most important lever that we could pull where we should drive our efforts, it's general highly qualified general classroom instructors and instruction, then we've got something to solve there. Right? So increasing numbers of folks on provisional licenses, the challenges of finding and hiring highly qualified special educators so that we're not, as reliant on paraprofessionals who are doing, you know, are dedicated, but not necessarily the highly qualified individuals. Right? So there are some fundamental barriers here that our scale of our system creates. So I do think we have to address that because we can only go so far, and that's just something we have to recognize. I would also say it's really important to not underestimate the value of having a strategic plan for an agency. It drives work. It drives resources. We have not had one. We have to sort of acknowledge that we are doing that work right now. We will have a strategic plan. It will drive resources. It will drive priorities. This is one of the core elements of our strategic plan. So I think that's critical to recognize. And then I think the third thing is, as we were developing the transformation proposal, which I'm hoping we can continue to improve, right, and and be thinking about this and and measuring goals like this against the proposal and how might we change it, right, how might we improve it. But as we were developing that transformation proposal, we looked across the unfinished initiatives and we said that was a priority. The state said it was a priority. Improving instruction for students with additional needs was a critical priority. Okay. What are some of our barriers to achieving that? Right? There are other initiatives that I think of as either work underway or just work that wasn't ever fully implemented with rigor and fidelity across the whole system. When we were developing this proposal, it also included a look at the work that the state has said. This is important. This is something that we want to do. What are some of our barriers to doing it? I thank you for your comment. I think it's really valid one. It's the comment of someone in the classroom who is most concerned about disruption to to education, and that's something that, you know, we also are thinking about a lot. [Meg Porcella]: Okay. So right before I turn it over to our, state director of special ed, the the last piece, is, that how the AOE is supporting districts and schools. And you didn't mention it, but one of the one of the other things that frequently comes up as pick something that folks wish had gone better was the AOE's ability to provide, on the ground technical support or training, when act one seventy three first came out. The AOE does provide lots of technical assistance. And right now, our education quality assurance division direct works directly with those systems that are in need of comprehensive supports that came under under our, ESSA plan. And I'm going to transition now and let, Cassie Santo, our state director of special ed, talk about what we're doing specifically around providing, special education, technical assistance. [Cassie Santo]: Hi, everyone. Thanks, Meg. I might not be able to answer all the questions coming through today, and I I I don't think I'm gonna answer why one seventy three might not be fully actualized. I've been in my role for a few months, and I have been on this team for several years. And I'm gonna share with you guys how we support the field currently and some ways in which we are improving our systems to better serve the field. We always have our universal technical assistance, which is some of what Meg was just referencing. We have multiple individuals that might respond to questions from the field and questions from community members, and that technical assistance line is always available throughout the year. Within the student support services division, which Meg is the director of, we offer professional development that is focused on multi tiered systems of support, five zero fours, BSTs, early childhood special education, and other general special education topics like eligibility, and then also continued trainings about the rule changes, which fully took place in July twenty twenty three. So when we think about the data to someone's question earlier about data points, we are only have data up until twenty twenty two, twenty twenty three, and the rule changes fully went into effect in twenty twenty three. Just wanted to make sure to note that. We also released guidance and tools to support the work of the field, and those are the universal supports that are made available to LEAs. In addition to our universal technical assistance, which happens within our technical assistance team, We also have a special education monitoring team. And so in a healthy system, the monitoring in special education should be proactively identifying gaps in practice and informing the agency's overall technical assistance and professional development so that we're able to target our work to address some of those observed gaps. Our monitoring system in the special education team has needed revision, and that has been a point of focus for our team over the past several months. We partnered with the National Center for Systemic Improvement and the IDEA Data Center. Those are both OSEP funded technical assistance centers to help us as we think through our current monitoring processes and how we can rewrite these processes to leverage change at the district level and and support that change. We are in the rewriting process now, and I'm going to introduce some of the items that we are working on. We are implementing a differentiated cyclic monitoring process. Monitoring is something that all LEAs have to engage in. They are assigned to cohort, and then they have set years that they are up for special education monitoring. We are going to be shifting how we monitor starting in August twenty twenty five. And what this means and really in some more simple language, hopefully, is that we are creating a risk assessment that we will use to help us to determine what type of monitoring a district might need based on the data points that we have. And then we would be determining if we would conduct a standard monitoring review or a more intensive monitoring review. The risk assessment would look at several data points that will hopefully give us some information about an LEA's level of need across their entire system. And we're really trying to look at this holistically to some of the points that, that my colleagues have made on this this call. Often, if a district is showing struggles within their special education practices, it is a sign of problems throughout the greater system. So depending on the results of a risk assessment, LEAs might have standard monitoring or they might have more intensive monitoring for their cyclic review. The details of those are still being discussed, but both types of reviews would include a file review component, and that would include a file review for students in independent schools within the sending LEA because as we sort of talked about earlier, that is the responsibility of the LEA, and that is one way that we can tap into some of the monitoring at the independent school level. And then an intensive review will be a more in-depth review, and it could include a site visit. In response to recent guidance, from the office of special education programs, the special education team has also been developing what sometimes is called off cycle monitoring, so monitoring that happens outside of that cyclic cohort, and we're really calling that a due diligence review. This process encompasses how we respond to potential noncompliance at an LEA. So this could include when we hear about areas of concern through the media or through our technical assistance line or some other medium. It really gets at what do we do when we have a potentially credible allegation about an individual student or a system. So we are calling this process a due diligence review. It can be initiated at any time, and this is an avenue where districts might be monitored outside of their cyclic monitoring cohort. So whether it's a cyclic monitoring review or an off cycle due diligence review, there is a potential for corrective action. And so in addition to all of this, we are focused on building out individualized corrective action aligned to support need. This summer, we are hosting professional development for the field during the pre weeks in August, and we have invited staff from across the agency to collaborate in an effort to unite our messaging and strengthen instruction and learning for all students. This work in this conversation as we've sort of identified I I wrote that it has to be an agency wide effort, but in some ways, it's even bigger than an agency wide effort. And our team is really trying to build the foundation to de silo special education and to find opportunities to work with schools in a way that can better their entire system. Students on IEPs are Vermont students first, and special education is a service designed to support students with disabilities in accessing and succeeding in the general education curriculum. So when we consider the results of special education monitoring, individualized corrective action, and then how those items might support legislation like act one seventy three. We are no longer just talking about special education system and special education as a part of that whole. All students might encounter academic challenges at some point during their life as a student. And act one seventy three really aimed to enhance the effectiveness, availability, and equity of services for each and every student. So I know you guys know that, but just wanted to make that point again. And and so, therefore, on our team, the corrective actions and the professional development that we offer to schools has to really focus on improving the broader educational system, to better serve all students. Thank you, guys. I'm happy to answer any [Meg Porcella]: any questions, but I might be able to [Speaker 1 ]: weigh in on here. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: And one one thing I would add just as sort of a general comment, again, sort of thinking about how we transform the system from top to bottom to really improve the quality of educational delivery. One thing that we've talked about that is an issue of scale is, that many of our districts, are really having to focus on compliance. Right? Really just being able to be, meeting the the sort of minimums of compliance and not necessarily having the resources available to be able to, like, really do those, activities to improve instruction. Right? And so we want to move out of that collectively. We want to move out of that. We want to move out of it as an agency as well. Right? And, secretary Sanders has talked many, many times about ensuring that we have the right level of expertise at the right level of this system. And so that is a challenge that is partially addressed by having larger districts, whatever that larger scale is. Right? We've been able to articulate with our proposal how you might staff that at the district level, but that doesn't mean that you cannot achieve scale at some other, you know, kind of organizational structure. It's really challenging right now. And this goes across not just special education, but sort of all of sort of the functions of central offices. We have very few districts that are operating at a level where they can really be, you know, working to to do that professional development and improve those instruction practices and have teacher mentors and have we hear a lot from principals who were like, I don't get to be an education leader. I'm doing administrative and compliance stuff all day. Right? So how that that is partially an issue of scale. It's partially an issue of the agency being better positioned to provide the kinds of support that the field is asking for. We heard that really loud and clear. We've really documented that through listen and learn when we were talking to education leaders and educators is they want to see us on the ground partnering with them. And then they also need to have the capacity to do that work. There's only so many hours in the day. Right? And so I I just I want to sort of address that as well. Is how do we move beyond we need to bring everybody to compliance. Right? Everyone needs to be doing what they're supposed to be doing. But how do we actually make some movement to really improve the quality of instruction for everyone and make sure that it's across the board. Right? Again, we know we have some systems that are doing well in this and are making gains, but it has to do for everyone. And there are just some system level barriers. And, Meg, you actually talk about one seventy three a lot as, like, this was about systems. Right? So yes, it is about fashion instruction. Yes, it is about master scheduling, but it's also about the systems that are are sort of necessary to be able to do this work. It's challenging work. [Justin Silverstein]: Yeah. So I think, you know, we all know that scale is a problem, and I don't think that's, you know, each of Vermont's education system. I think it's a broader Vermont problem. I was able to talk about workforce, like, there are just scale issues because there are approximately as many people in the state as in the city of Boston spread out over the entire state. But when we're talking about, you know, student services, when we're talking about outcomes, looking back at the slide about the current education transformation proposal, it talks about improving academic proficiency through effective accountability. It talks about supporting things like the master schedule. Well, not that those things aren't important, but it seems to me that when we have budgets passing that are cutting staff, when we're hearing from folks on the ground that they can't keep up with the [Emilie Kornheiser]: work that they already need [Justin Silverstein]: to do, when we know that, you know, it's just personnel costs in terms of health care costs that is largely a driver for why we're spending so much on education. I'm struggling to see how helping with scheduling, helping providing mentors for new teachers and, you know, effective accountability solves the problem of who just don't have enough people in our schools to support our students' current needs. And so I'm just I'm really trying to, you know, bash those two things together in a way that wants to just have a hard time. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: So I think that part of our contention is I I think we should ask that question. It is not the case that we do not physically have enough adults in our school buildings to meet our needs. [Justin Silverstein]: It is a vital experience. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: And that's part of the problem. Right? And and, like, in and we've actually really talked about that in our highest needs districts. Those are the places where the cuts are happening the most. That is absolute part of why that move to a different foundation formula approach would result in an equitable distribution of resources for some of our highest needs communities. We know that those are the communities that are not funding to the same level as our other our other communities are. I think also what you we've we've talked about and and Nate, I might like heads up, Nate. I might fall on you right now. You are doing something else. What we have been exploring, and we have actually worked with Nate Levinson on this for two two reasons. One is that he's been working in the Vermont system for a really long time and has directly worked with districts around how they staff and schedule. And and so he can sort of speak to this at a level of detail, that I I cannot, despite my work with business managers and superintendents over the past few years. The other piece of this is that Nate was really heavily involved with, special education and and one of the main three and network as well. So, Nate, I'm wondering if you can speak to a little bit some of the concerns that were just raised around how do we do this work to support, all students, but in particular, students on IPs or students who need additional support. And at the same time, how do we do it, in in sort of the the funding system that we are proposing and the budgets? [Nate Levinson]: Sure. Great questions. Good morning. So a couple thoughts. And and I think we these are interconnected. So I think the first thing I'd put out is were you to implement act one seventy three fully, oddly enough, you will need fewer adults to cope with more higher skill levels. So one is it is an interesting thing that it is actually less adult intensive than current practices. Second is and I know people have talked about scale in a couple different ways. Implementing the change in practices, and these are changes in mindsets and changes in practices. It takes about as much leadership management and effort to change the practices in a district with five hundred students, a thousand students, or ten thousand students. And I say that from somebody who has helped change these practices in many hundreds of districts. So I I do think that as the number of districts come down, it would be easier to bring these changes to to fruition. But I think the other thing that's also really important is getting a larger number of schools under the same leadership. And as we've talked a lot about some of the changes that might come about with budgeting is in a world of small schools, you're going to need to be able to share staff and coordinate staff across multiple schools. And I just wanna give you one kind of very simple benchmark to think about. In states and we we've led a lot of work in Louisiana who has enacted essentially exactly act one seventy three under a different name. And they have seen the best in the nation outcomes for students with disabilities. But as they were mapping out the staffing for that, for example, there's a greater role in both Act one hundred and seventy three as there is in Louisiana for, reading teachers. You know, this is that what what, Megan's talking about, the intervention early, quickly of highly skilled teachers, that extra time for kids, in this case, struggling to read. In, Louisiana, they target about they assume one full time reading teacher would help about thirty students. Some districts will get back to thirty five. As we have worked in, Vermont with school systems trying to do this, you will typically have to set an expectation of about that same FTE helping about fifteen students, not thirty or thirty five. Given small school systems or reluctance to share or an inability to share across multiple schools. So it does seem that the current lack of scale also drives a need for more of these highly skilled folks. [Justin Silverstein]: If I could follow-up on one more time. Sure. So I think what I'm what I'm struggling with is that I understand the concept of achieving scale and streamlining processes will theoretically result in less, you know, labor hours, for lack of a better term, which could then reduce total amount of FDPs needed. But when we're living in a world when, you know, students' needs, families' needs, community needs are getting more complicated, not less. And we're already being told that we have that we don't have enough people. That's what we are hearing from our schools or from our school board is that they don't have enough resources to gain people and money. [Speaker 1 ]: I think what was [Justin Silverstein]: just, like what mister Robinson just laid out works great if we're assuming that student needs are going to plateau, stay the same, etcetera, not get worse. I am looking at we talked about the national picture earlier. You know, we're looking at income inequality. We're looking at increased poverty, hunger. I don't see a world where those needs are going down. And so to say that, you know, those needs are going to increase, but just trust us. We're gonna flip. Require less work, which will require less people. That's just really hard to square. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: So we're not saying trust us. We're we're showing. Right? We're showing the data. But I I do I I want us to continue to challenge the the assumption. I would agree with you if we were delivering highly effective services right now. Right? If we were optimal and the need was continuing to grow, then I would say you're right. We need more resources because the need is continuing to grow and we have maxed out the efficiency and effectiveness. I think effectiveness is critical here. I think what we're saying is that the the data and analysis qualitative and quantitative that we have done is showing us that we have not achieved that. So I I don't in any way disagree with you that we're seeing student need increase. I fully agree with that. But I I am encouraging us to question whether or not more bodies, more adults is the first solution when we have not yet really, done the work of ensuring that we're effective in our existing delivery services. And one of those places that, you know, we I think we're we should continue to talk about is things like class sizes. We do objectively have the smallest class sizes in the nation. We should be talking about that. How does that that choice that we have made, it is a choice, resulted in maybe a diversion of resources to other parts of the school system that could support students in a different way. [Speaker 1 ]: And I think one of [Emilie Kornheiser]: the things that's helpful about having really good data when you are able to bring it is we are able to look across the state and see the significant differences between a district like Barry and other districts. So are we spoke about [Jill Briggs Campbell]: in terms of in terms of in terms of, [Emilie Kornheiser]: like It has writ large across the board. The massive differences between our districts, I think, is not always entirely available to people as information when we're not able to see sort of [Justin Silverstein]: the best quality data. So remember, Harvey, [Meg Porcella]: it's something. Sorry. I need [Jill Briggs Campbell]: to be specific about what you're needing. Yep. That would be helpful rather than a broad statement because we've provided hundreds of pages. So what is it that's needed to drive the conversation forward would be really helpful to get Representative Bernhardt, and then I think represent Dunlap's gonna wrap this up. Yeah. I'm I'm I'm just really struggling to understand what you feel is missing from the implementation of one seventy three because I come from a district, kinda been on the board [Meg Porcella]: of that district during implementation of MTSS, and it's a it's a district that's at scale. Like, has class sizes of twenty five, you know, in the upper grades and has class sizes of fifteen in the lower grades, sometimes more than that, probably, like, nineteen or twenty, you know, second graders crammed in the classroom, with all their different needs. And we invested really heavily in MTSS, like, really a lot of work into it, spent lots of hours at the board level, lots of hours of staff time. And, still the number of IEPs, the number of needs for additional adults based on those IEPs, because that's what we're struggling to figure out is how do we meet those IEPs without additional adults. Because the needs, as as Teddy was saying, still seem to grow even in a district that's really heavily invested and feels like they've implemented MTSS. The the statistic this year in that district was that fifty five percent of the budget increase that they were looking for in the community was coming from special education, like, extraordinary special education needs. And so I I'm not criticizing act one seventy three. I'm just trying to square the circle, if you will, if if that was sort of meant to be how we were gonna get to a place where we needed fewer bodies. Like, why isn't that working even in a district that is at scale and that has tried to implement it? And I don't know how to make that into a beta request, but I'm just trying to I'm just trying to understand that. And and I would I would push back a little bit on it's the districts with the highest needs that are making the biggest cuts because I work with two districts. In in my my representative district represents two districts that are at scale, and both of them have had to make one made client cuts to FTEs and actually managed to cut back the budget this year. The other one has cut FTEs and still has a growing budget partly because of special education expenses, partly because of health care and other things that are that are driving up the budget. But I just wanna put that out there because I'm I'm just really struggling if we're still sort of focused on one seventy three as the way to get to fewer bodies. If it's not working in these example districts, how do you [Speaker 5 ]: make [Meg Porcella]: that work across a bigger system? [Cassie Santo]: Thank you. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: Before you respond, I'm gonna respond to the last thing you said first. I think that we've actually been very clear that what we see as sort of the future state of our system, if we don't make change, whatever that change may be, is that everyone will be faced with the decision to cut. That's not what we've said. What we've said and what the data shows very clearly is that the result of our current education funding system is that our highest needs communities are spending less per student than our better resourced communities. So when we're talking about I did you I'm sorry. I just feel like it's not responsive to I don't have to so I'm gonna finish my sentence. So when we're talking about cuts across districts, I agree with you. We know that districts were able to hold the line this year by making incredibly painful cuts sometimes to highly effective programs, not replaces that we would want to see those cuts. No one in this room is saying that we would want to see cuts to highly effective teachers and programs that support students. That's actually the entire point of the education transformation. What we are signaling is that the existing inequities in our system are going to be exacerbated because already those under resourced communities are already spending less per student. And when they are making cuts, they are making cuts to entire programs, right, for our highest needs students. The inequities are going to continue to grow. So I just wanna be really clear because we are not saying that and we never have. We recognize that if we continue with our current system, the only choice that districts have to maintain their current level of spending or or to maintain their current level of spending growth is to cut. That's actually fundamental to what we brought from the very first day when we were talking about education transformation. We looked across the system and we said, this is [Speaker 10 ]: the what the future looks like. [Jill Briggs Campbell]: So I just wanna be very clear about that. I don't want any conversation that Berkeley Agency has said many, many times over the past few months, and it's it's a bad situation to be in. Nobody wants that situation. It's why we feel the urgency to make change this session. It's why we have presented something big this session, with the hope that we can work together to refine it and improve it. And then, Meg, I'll let you speak to the the sort of assertion that one seventy three is not cutting staff because I don't think that's what it's about. No. And, [Meg Porcella]: you know, like Nate's what Nate just said about how that when the system is is running optimally, we would expect to see education be able to happen with fewer adults is is an outcome, I think. My to to so for for me and what we try to say at the education the agency of education is that when we talk about the multi tiered system of support test, it's a framework and and not the the part of it that makes sure that students get what they need in a timely in a timely way. So, hopefully, there's using data to intervene on the students we have proactively, not waiting for a student to fail. That's a that's a sliver of what teachers what we say when we're in the classroom around our multi tier system of support. I've looked at a I looked at some test scores. I see a bunch of kids who are having a struggle with the same thing. I'm gonna put them together, and I'm gonna reteach it. So that's that's an element of a multi tiered system of supports. But but one seventy three, that idea was it's the framework for how districts and schools and classrooms do what they do. And, so it's bigger than so I I just I think that the answer to we in my district, we are implementing NTSS. Why isn't it working? Then the question needs to to be a little bit different, but I'm positive there's an answer there. It's part of that continuous improvement. I'm I'm going to try not [Speaker 10 ]: to sound like I'm rambling. [Meg Porcella]: But I I wonder if there are ways to look at that district's data to get to what that is. And when when you say they're implementing a TSS, what are those things that they're doing well? What are the things that still need to be addressed in their in their system, how they're how they're leveraging their framework? [Speaker 5 ]: I'm gonna [Meg Porcella]: Sorry. Yeah. Put this stop there. [Speaker 5 ]: Just hope to start having to wander out. I I guess maybe maybe just to wrap up, I might reiterate what Nate Levinson said at our last gathering in this room, which is that a program like Act one seventy three, and I would say for any any major transformation changes, it needs sustained support over a number of years, like five minimum, in order to be successful. And I think that that gets the message that we all could keep in mind as we move forward. [Meg Porcella]: And without a pandemic happening two years into I understand. [Speaker 5 ]: At a certain point, we're gonna stop it. [Nate Levinson]: Alright. We'll wrap there. [Speaker 5 ]: Have a good lunch, everybody. Thank you all for your time and those of you who joined us via the.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of HWM/HEd 2025-3-12

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: