Education Legislative Report

June 19, 2006

 

 

2006 Education Legislative Review

Almost from the beginning of the 2006 legislative session, it appeared to onlookers that there was something unusual about the second year of this biennium.  By the time the session ended on May 10th, it was clear that this year’s legislative activity had been unusually focused on a timely adjournment, and that both the Senate and the House of Representatives were committed to meeting pre-set deadlines for bill introduction and  consideration by committees. 

 

The dominant issue for both the General Assembly and the Douglas administration was health care reform.  Legislative leaders saw this as the issue upon which the 2005-2006 biennium would be subjected to the closest scrutiny by the widest spectrum of voters.  In the end, after an intense last ditch effort by legislators and the administration to reach a compromise, a health care reform bill (described in some detail later in this Report) acceptable to legislative leaders as well as the Governor, was enacted and signed into law.

 

With regard to education policy, the 2006 session was marked by the breadth of its attention to issues ranging from teachers’ retirement to idling school buses and reform of the teacher licensing and professional discipline systems.  Some significant issues (school choice, for example) received somewhat surprisingly little attention in 2006, while others (early education, access to public records and education cost reduction, for example) were referred to newly created study committees directed to make recommendations to next year’s legislature.

 

In this report, we will discuss education-related bills that were passed by both houses and sent to the Governor for his signature.  One bill that would have had potential impact on schools, H.865--the gender identity bill, was vetoed by Governor Douglas.  The other bills discussed in this summary will be effective on July 1, 2006 unless otherwise noted.

 

Act 158 Life-threatening Chronic Allergies and Illnesses in Schools (Introduced as H.611)

This Act directs the Commissioner of Education and the Commissioner of Health to annually inform superintendents and principals “of appropriate practices regarding students with life-threatening allergies and chronic illnesses; and prepare and distribute policies, training materials, and school guidelines for managing students with life-threatening allergies and chronic illnesses, including family responsibilities, school responsibilities and student responsibilities.”  In addition, school boards must assign an employee to be responsible for annually informing parents of students with allergies and chronic illnesses of relevant current law and their rights, particularly under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  The same employee will be responsible for informing school staff of their responsibilities and providing staff training necessary to the fulfillment of their responsibilities.

 

The terms “life-threatening allergy” and “chronic illness” are not defined in the Act, but the legislative findings accompanying the Act specify diabetes and asthma as two such conditions. The findings also refer to illnesses that “…require an immediate response to save (a) child’s life,” and give as an example “(A)n allergic reaction (that may develop) into anaphylaxis which is sudden and potentially fatal.”

 

Act 214--Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators (Introduced as H.677)

The composition and duties of the Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators (VSBPE) have been significantly altered by the passage of Act 214.  The Standards Board has been reduced in size from 23 to thirteen.  Members of the new VSBPE (seven teachers, two administrators, one member of the public, one school board member, one representative of educator preparation programs from a public institution of higher education and one representative of teacher preparation programs from a private institution of higher education), will be appointed by the Governor. 

 

The VSBPE will now have the authority to establish licensing standards through the development of administrative rules.  Currently, the VSBPE recommends standards and the State Board has the power to enact rules based on those recommendations.  In an unusual variation on the rule-making process, however, Act 214 allows the Commissioner of Education or the State Board of Education to object to proposed standards on the grounds that they would have a “significant adverse or financial impact on the public school system.”  If such an objection is made, the VSBPE will be required to reconsider its recommendations and make changes necessary to gain the support of the Commissioner and State Board.

 

Act 214 also reforms the system for investigating and prosecuting allegations of professional misconduct on the part of licensed educators.  The VSBPE will no longer have a role in discipline cases.  Investigation committees and hearing panels will be established to advise the Commissioner during the investigation process and to determine allegations of misconduct based on recommendations of hearing officers.  The State Board will retain the authority to hear appeals from decisions of hearing panels.  This system mirrors that currently utilized by the Secretary of State’s office for licensees under its jurisdiction.

 

One issue of particular importance to school administrators, the circumstances under which superintendents will be notified of misconduct allegations concerning employees in their supervisory districts, was resolved as the bill made its way through the Senate.  Act 214 provides for notification to superintendents of misconduct allegations in specified circumstances.  Superintendents will be notified when allegations of misconduct against employees in their districts that potentially would place students in immediate physical or emotional jeopardy are received by the Commissioner. In other situations, a superintendent will be notified of a licensee’s identity and the general category of the alleged misconduct when the Commissioner initiates a formal investigation, and will then be notified of the Commissioner’s decision to file (or not file) formal charges at the conclusion of the investigation. If formal charges are filed, the notice will include a copy of formal charges describing the specific conduct upon which the charges are based. 

 

Because these notification requirements provide more notice to superintendents than is provided to other employers of other licensed professionals, Act 214 makes disclosure of confidential information about a licensing investigation by a superintendent an element of unprofessional conduct subject to licensing discipline.

 

In addition to the above notification requirements, the Commissioner’s authority to seek summary suspension of a license when he or she finds that the “public health, safety or welfare imperatively requires emergency action” is specified in the Act.  Also included is a requirement that chairs of supervisory union or supervisory district boards be notified of charges brought in response to allegations of misconduct by superintendents in the employ of their boards.

 

Act 127 Informing Parents and Students of their Rights (Introduced as  H.538)

This Act directs the Commissioner of Education to make available to superintendents annually a list of information that school districts, school boards or school employees are “…required under federal or state law to make available to the electorate, community members, parents or guardians, and students.”  Responding to concern by the Commissioner’s office that such a requirement might expose the Commissioner to legal liability in the event that the list provided was not complete or contained erroneous information, the legislature included a provision in the law stating that failure to include “…relevant information on the list shall not constitute grounds for an action against the commissioner.”  This would appear to mean that, although the Commissioner’s list will be helpful, it will not be a list that school districts will be able to use with absolute assurance that it covers all their responsibilities in this area.

 

Act 127 also directs school boards to annually inform parents and students in grades 9-12 of their current school choice options.  School boards are also required by this enactment to “…enable (a) secondary student and the student’s parents or guardians to disallow provision of student contact information to either military recruiters or institutions of higher education, while allowing provision of information to the other.”  This provision is in response the requirement in the No Child Left Behind Act that school districts provide student contact information to military recruiters and colleges.  Under the NCLBA, schools must notify parents each year that they may request that their children’s name, address and telephone number not be released to military or postsecondary recruiters without prior written parental consent.

 

Act 145 Vermont Products and Nutrition Education in Schools (Introduced as H.456)

This Act creates several directives regarding nutrition and local food products in schools.  It also requires several agencies to review their policies, as well as this Act, and develop new ideas for providing local products and nutritious food in Vermont schools, and to report their findings to the next legislature. 

 

The Act creates a mini-grants program, to be administered by the Agency of Agriculture, for which schools or school collaboratives may apply.  The grants are to be used for buying equipment that would allow greater consumption of local products in schools, to “purchase items, including local farm products, that will help teachers to use hands-on educational techniques to educate students about nutrition and farm to school connections,” or to provide professional development and technical assistance for teachers to help them “…educate students about nutrition and farm-to-school connections.” The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to develop specific criteria for the mini-grants, and each award shall be no larger than $15,000.  The Secretary of Agriculture is also directed to assist farmers in widening their markets, specifically by cultivating institutional customers like schools, with education and financing.  The General Assembly appropriated $125,000 for the mini-grant program, $10,000 for teacher training and $5,000 for activities related to market expansion activities.

 

The Commissioner of Education is directed to expand regional training opportunities for food service personnel and child care resource development specialists, both to educate them about nutrition and to develop strategies for purchasing local products when possible.  The training so provided is required to promote the nutrition and fitness policy guidelines in the Vermont Nutrition and Fitness Policy Guidelines document published by the Departments of Education, Health and Agriculture in November of 2005 and subsequent revisions thereto.  The Department of Education will be provided $25,000 in funding to support these training activities.

Act 176 High School Completion for 16- to 22-Year Old “Dropouts” (Introduced as S.222)

Act 176 derives from the summer study on high school completion, chaired by Sen. Don Collins and discussed in previous Legislative Reports. The Act authorizes the use graduation education plans, as a way for individuals (ages 16 through 21), who are not enrolled in school, to earn high school diplomas.  Since 2000 there has been a 300% increase in the number of “dropouts” between the ages of 16 through 21 seeking assistance from the adult education system. This represented a total of 1,500 students in 2005. Under Act 176 their education could be provided though a personalized combination of services provided by a school district and an approved education provider, and paid for by the Commissioner of Education.  Approved independent high schools are also eligible to provide services.

 

An eligible student wishing to pursue high school graduation through a combination of services provided by a high school and an “approved provider” (defined in the law as “…an agency approved by the Commissioner to provide educational services which may be counted for credit toward a high school diploma”) may develop a plan with a high school and the provider.  The Commissioner is authorized to “…assign a student who wishes to work on a graduation education plan to a high school district which whall the district of residence whenever possible.”

 

The plan will define the scope of the academic course work required for graduation, and identify the providers of the services required to carry out the plan.  The high school will award a diploma upon successful completion of the plan, and the school district will be reimbursed by the Commissioner for both the services provided by the high school (such as preparation of the graduation plan, counseling, health services or participation in co-curricular activities and academic courses) and the services the high school contracts to the approved provider.  The fees for services provided by the high school (including an approved independent school) will be established by the Commissioner.  Services provided by approved providers will be “…negotiated by the Commissioner and the agency which has entered into a contract with the Department of Education to provide adult education services in Vermont.”  Act 176 appropriates $1,000,000 from the Education Fund for the Commissioner to reimburse school districts for GEPs.

 

Act 176 requires the Commissioner to report annually, beginning in 2008, to the legislative committees on education on the number of students participating in the graduation education plan  program, the completion rate of those students and the amounts paid on behalf of those students.

 

Act 186 Early Education  (Introduced as S.314)

Act 186 creates a pre-Kindergarten education study committee made up of three Senators (not all from the same political party), three representatives (also not all from the same party) the Commissioner of Education, The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, and one representative of the business community appointed by the Governor. The committee is directed to study the current state of pre-Kindergarten education in Vermont, as well as its potential benefits and the potential value of publicly funding early educational services, including the potential of early education services as an economic development strategy.  The Committee’s findings are to be delivered to the House and Senate Education Committees, the House Committee on Human Services and the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare on or before January 30, 2007.

 

The Act includes a provision that, in the 2007-08 school year, a school district wishing to begin a new early education program “shall contract with qualified [providers]… unless it determines that it cannot efficiently and effectively provide quality services using these providers…”  The bill gives the Commissioner of Education final discretion over whether a school district has met the “efficient and effective” requirements.

 

 The bill also prohibits the State Board of Education from “adopt(ing), revis(ing) or repeal(ing) any rules governing early childhood or pre-Kindergarten education services…” before June, 30, 2008.

 

Governor Douglas allowed Act 186 to become law without his signature.  In his statement explaining his refusal to sign the bill, Douglas said, “(T)he burden on Vermonters who pay the property tax is unsustainable.  I don’t think adding two grades to the public education system is the way to go.”

 

Act. 147 Capital Construction and State Bonding (Introduced as H.864)

In total, $24.332 million was appropriated for school construction projects for FY2007.  Of the total amount appropriated $10.132 was appropriated within Act 147 (the capital bill) and $14.2 million was appropriated in the Appropriations Bill - Act 215.

 

FY2007 school construction funds are allocated this way:

Emergency Funding

$750,000

School Rehabilitation Projects

$2.5 million

Energy -Related Projects

$2.06 million

 

Bradford Elementary School

 

$  704,405

Cambridge Elementary School

$1,071,844

Montgomery Elementary School

$   567,308

Williamstown Middle and High School

$1,232,124

Saxtons River Elementary School

$   875,000

Bellow Falls Central Elementary School

$   875,000

Waterbury Thatcher Brook Elementary

$1,170,000

Westminster Central School

$   420,000

Windsor State Street School Project

$   173,065

East Haven School

$   108,750

Lowell School

$     19,563

Windham Regional Career Center

$5,000,000

Patricia Hannaford Career Center

$2,206,785

Green Mountain Tech and Career Center

$2,000,000

North Country Career Center

$2,000,000

 

 

Technical Center and Comprehensive High School Equipment

Act 147 also appropriates $600 thousand to assist regional technical education centers and comprehensive high schools with the purchase of educational program equipment.  These funds are to be distributed in equal amounts to the eligible schools and will be granted with the caveat “the equipment purchased with these funds will meet or exceed a 15 year life cycle.”

 

With respect to state funded purchase of educational program equipment, Act 147 includes provisions directing the Department of Education to submit a report to the Legislature on “the types of equipment that should be eligible for purchase with capital funds and options for ways in which additional funding could be maid available for equipment purchase by using education fund dollars.”

 

Change in State Aid Grant Percentage for Incremental Costs of Renewable Fuel Sources

Significantly, the Act includes amends 16 V.S.A. § 3448(a)(7)(B) to change the percentage of  state aid grant for incremental costs associated with renewable fuel sources from 90 percent to 75 percent.  The Act makes clear that costs eligible for 75 percent aid do not extend to the costs of staff areas, site improvements related to fuel delivery or other ancillary costs. This provision takes effect on January 1, 2007.  All other changes described in this description of Act 147 take effect on passage, with the exception of the provision on ballot language (below) which takes effect on July 1, 2006.

 

Change to Emergency Project Threshold

The Act increases the threshold for “emergency projects” that will receive first priority for funding eligibility from $50,000 to $100,000 and authorizes the Commissioner to make emergency awards of up to that amount.

 

Voting on School Construction Projects - New Ballot Language Requirements

In an effort to enhance voter awareness about the funding of school construction projects and the potential for delays in the availability of approved state funding support, Act 147 adds new provisions specifying the wording of ballot language and “sign-offs’ by local officials acknowledging that funds may not be available on the local project time line.

 

Specifically, 24 V.S.A. §1758(b)(3) is amended to require that the warning and ballot contain the following set for in bold-faced type:

 

State funds may not be available at the time this project is otherwise eligible to receive state school construction aid.  The district is responsible for all costs incurred in connection with any borrowing done in anticipation of state school construction aid.

 

The Act also establishes a new requirement that school district applicants for construction aid sign an acknowledgement that the state is not obligated to pay its share of the construction costs until state funds are available and that the applicant is responsible for costs of borrowing in anticipation of state aid.

 

Committee Established to Pursue High Performance School Design and Construction Standards

Act 147 also establishes a committee to develop a comprehensive proposal to incorporate high performance school design and construction standards into school construction projects.  The Commissioner of Education or his designee will chair the committee of representatives of various interested organizations (including the Vermont Superintendents Association).  The proposal will address “indoor environmental quality, energy efficiency, use of renewable energy, water efficiency, building material selection, building siting, construction practices and ongoing building operations and maintenance.”  The proposal for incorporating high performance standards within school design is due for submission to the House and Senate Institutions Committees on or before January 15, 2007.

 

Changes to the Role of the Department of Buildings and General Services

The General Assembly has changed the role of the Department of Buildings and General Services with respect to the construction/alterations to technical education facilities. Under current law, the Department of Buildings and General Services has responsibility for carrying out the design and construction of technical education facilities. Buildings and General Services also currently serves as the conduit through which state appropriated project funds flow. 

 

Act 147 amends current law to place the Department of Buildings and General Services in a consulting role for technical education construction projects.  The Department will maintain its role as the lead agency for the planning and construction of technical education construction projects that are being supported with 100% state funding (North Country Career Center and Windham Regional Career Center). 

 

Act 185 Education Finance Simplification (Introduced as H.880)

Since the passage of Act 60, the General Assembly has adjusted Vermont’s education funding law nearly on an annual basis.  Several years ago, the most significant adjustments came with the passage of Act 68.  This year, the Legislature focused on revisions to the rebate and prebate systems in order to create a smoother process for the payment of education property taxes by Vermonters eligible for participation in those programs.  The Legislature also incorporated in Act 185 its annual adjustments to the base homestead education tax rate and the non-residential education tax rate.

 

Act 185 was enacted without the signature of Governor Jim Douglas. 

 

Under Act 185, the current system of prebates and rebates will be combined into a single annual property tax adjustment.  In a significant change to the system, beginning in 2007, the Tax Department will determine appropriate adjustments to education property tax bills based on taxpayer eligibility and work with municipalities to credit property tax bills accordingly before they are sent to taxpayers.  In order to address concerns about confidentiality, taxpayers will also have the option of directing overpayments of income taxes (withholding of sorts) toward their property tax and will be rewarded with an additional 1% credit of whatever income tax payment they direct for withholding for their property tax bill.

 

The transition to this system will generate substantial one-time savings, including sufficient funds to provide an additional $14.2 million for school construction projects during the upcoming fiscal year.

 

Act 185 also lowers education property tax rates by 7 cents for FY2007 as compared to FY2006.  For FY2007 only, the base education homestead tax rate is $0.95 and the non-residential education tax rate will be $1.44.  Last year, the rates were $1.02 and $1.51.

 

Similarly, Act 185 reduces the base income sensitivity percentage from 1.85% to 1.80%.  It further establishes 1.80% as the floor for the base income sensitivity percentage so that, irrespective of tax rate reductions the base income sensitivity percentage can go no lower than 1.80%.

 

For FY2007 and FY2008, Act 185 imposes a cap on the total amount of property tax adjustments that can be received at $10,000.  The question of whether the $10,000 cap is advisable at all, or whether the amount should be modified is the subject of future study by the General Assembly.

 

For households with the lowest incomes, the property tax liability is reduced. Act 185 amends existing law to cap the property tax obligation for households with incomes less than $10,000 per year at 2% of income.

 

Act 185 includes appropriations to ensure its successful implementation.  The Act allocates $120,000 for changes to municipal tax software, $240,000 is allocated for notification of changes in the law to tax filers and municipal officials and $182,000 is directed to the Department of Taxes for its work associated with Act 185 changes.

 

The law also establishes an “Education Finance Advisory Working Group” to  “advise the department of taxes and town officials on issues related to the implementation of this act.”  The working group will be chaired by the Commissioner of Taxes and meet at his call. The law also directs the joint fiscal office to analyze relative education tax burdens borne by various classes of taxpayers in Vermont and examine the impact of growth in education grand lists, household income, education spending, non-education tax sources, education tax rate adjustments and other changes under Act 68.

 

The joint fiscal office is also directed to develop a fiscal model of the plan developed last year by the House Legislative Study Committee on Income-based Education Property Tax for Vermonters known as Proposal #1.  Proposal #1 would replace the Act 60/68 income sensitivity system with a state education income tax of 1.5% of income.

 

Teachers’ Retirement

We summarized the recommendations of last summer’s Commission on Funding the Vermont State Teachers’ Retirement System in our Legislative Bulletin of January 27th and our Legislative Report of February 20th.  There were two issues related to “fixing” the teachers’ retirement under-funding problem that were of particular concern to local education officials when the Commission Report was released.  The first concern was whether contributions by employers (local school districts) would be required in the future in order to achieve full funding of the system.  The second concern, a variation on the first, was whether the Education Fund would become a revenue source for the state’s share of future teacher retirement costs. Although the Commission did not recommend either of these steps, each was supported to one degree or another by several Commission members as well as Governor Douglas. 

 

For much of this session, it appeared that full funding of the retirement system would, once again, be deferred to another time.  In the end, however, the Appropriations Act (Act 215) responded affirmatively to each of the Commission’s recommendations for changes in the system’s actuarial and funding methodologies, and provided full funding (without resort to employer contributions or funds from the Education Fund) for FY 2007. 

 

The specific actions taken in the appropriations bill include the following.

  • The Early Age Normal actuarial methodology will be used to provide a more accurate picture of the plan’s funded status and to make the system’s actuarial methodology consistent with most public retirement plans.
  • The unfunded actuarial liability will be re-amortized over 30 years in order to reduce the state’s required annual contribution.
  • Separate appropriations for normal and unfunded actuarial liability costs will be created in order to show costs associated with under-funding as distinct from costs associated with paying benefits.
  • The recommendation of the Commission to fully fund the FY 2007 appropriation will be implemented by appropriating $38.4M from various revenue sources, including some surplus revenue sources.  Significantly, the Education Fund will not be tapped for this purpose, as had been recommended by a majority of Commission members and the Governor in his budget address.
  • A statement of legislative intent to fully fund actuarial recommendations with base funds by 2010 is included in Act 215.  The goal of this commitment is to ensure that after 2010 it will no longer be necessary to resort to surplus revenue sources in order to achieve full funding of annual actuarial recommendations.

 

While these actions do not completely close the loop on the under-funding problems of the teachers’ retirement system, they are a significant step in the right direction.  Legislative action in the next few years will determine whether fully funding the teachers’ retirement system will become an entrenched and binding state commitment.

 

Act 190 Health Care Reform (Introduced as H.861 and H.895)

As indicated in the introduction to this Report, health care reform was the most prominent issue throughout the 2005-2006 biennium.  The compromise reached by the Governor and legislative leaders at the end of the session, called “Catamount Health,” is described below.  The following description has been excerpted from a summary of Act 190 prepared by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont and provided to us for inclusion in this Report by the Vermont School Boards Insurance Trust.

 

Catamount Health is to be a separately rated insurance pool for people who are not currently insured and cannot obtain coverage through an employer sponsored plan. The legislation will provide premium subsidies on a sliding scale for those with low incomes, and also establishes the benefits that will be offered. Additionally, it sets reimbursement rates to providers at 110 percent of Medicare payments. A key point of the compromise allows the commissioner of BISHCA to require the participation of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont and MVP Health Plan in the new Catamount Health program, on a risk basis, if those companies do not voluntarily participate. Both organizations had previously indicated to legislative conferees that they intend to participate in Catamount Health. The new benefits will become available to the uninsured by October 1, 2007.

 

The health care reform plan passed in H.861 and H.895 also:

·        Centralizes health care reform activities under the management of the Administration Agency;

·        Requires development and implementation of a five-year strategic plan for the Blueprint for Health," the chronic care model that is designed to become part of the care management protocols of insurers, providers and the state;

·        Creates a premium subsidy program to assist enrollees in the Vermont Health Access Plan and uninsured people with access to employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) to enroll in their group health insurance programs;

·        Creates the Catamount Health Program, described above;

o       This includes the following provision: "Premium rates shall be actuarially determined considering differences in the demographics of the populations and the different levels and methods of reimbursements for health care professionals ... A rate shall be approved if it is sufficient not the threaten the financial safety and soundness of the insurer ... "

·        Creates a Health Care Reform Commission to monitor the effectiveness of Catamount Health and recommend to the Legislature further changes that may be required to achieve universal health care coverage in Vermont;

·        Creates a task force to identify ways to reduce the cost-shift from government programs and uninsured individuals to private health insurance rates, and to assure than any reductions in the cost shift are captured in lower health care costs;

·        Creates a state sponsored reinsurance pool for non-group coverage, providing reinsurance for 5 percent of the claims costs for each carrier's non-group population;

·        Requires a study of how to rationalize the non-group market segment by eliminating the segmentation that currently exists, i.e, elimination of the Vermont Safety Net program and imposition of a single regulatory structure for non-group earners;

·        Lays the groundwork for a mandate that all Vermonters acquire health benefits by January 1, 2011 if 96 percent of the population is not covered by 2010;

·        Allows small group carriers to vary from their community rates by providing ''healthy lifestyle" discounts when appropriate;

·        Requires a contribution in lieu of premium payments for employers who do not provide group health insurance for their members. Initially, the assessment would be $365 per year for each employee. Employers would not be charged the assessment on their first eight employees.  The first required payment by employers will be based on the status of employees on January 1, 2007 and will be made by employers on April 1, 2007;

·        Creates processes for administrative simplification through the development of common claims forms and processes and provider credentialing activities.

 

Act 114 Suicide Prevention Education in Public Schools (Introduced as H.630)

This Act expands the scope of comprehensive health education curricula to include “…an understanding of depression and the signs of suicide risk in a family member or fellow student…”  Based on a legislative finding that “…teaching about signs of and appropriate responses to depression and risk of suicide is critical to promoting a safe and healthy school environment for all children, the act emphasizes education for those who may have contact with individuals who are at a high risk for depression or suicide.”  The goal of the educational requirement is to inform students of available resources and appropriate responses when they see signs of depression in others, “…such as the local suicide crisis hotline.”

 

Act 115 Organization of Supervisory Districts (Introduced as H.710)

Act 115 allows school districts offering grades K-8 and designated as a supervisory district on January 1, 2006 to remain a supervisory district, even though 16 V.S.A. § 261(c) allows the State Board of Education to designate only school districts that operate grades K-12 as supervisory districts.  This “grandfathering” language was intended to apply specifically to the Essex Town school district.

 

Act 130 Funding Regional Technical School Districts (Introduced as H.877)

Effective beginning in fiscal year 2008, this Act updates fiscal statutes for technical center school districts.  The technical centers currently subject to this law are the Southwest Vermont Career Development Center in Bennington and the Patricia A. Hannaford Career Center in Middlebury.

 

 Act 130 requires regional technical school districts to prepare and report on a budget to submit to the electorate of the region.  Once the budget has passed, a district that sends students to those centers will be assessed its share, which will become a binding obligation of the district without the need for a vote by the sending district electorate, and the assessment will be included in the sending district’s computation of education spending.  If the budget is not approved by June 30 of any year, the technical district will be authorized to borrow up to 87% of the previous year’s budget.  The Act repeals Sections 1572(b)(2) and 1577(10) of Title 16, the budget adoption mechanism currently in place for regional technical school districts.

 

Act 182 Technical Corrections to Education Law (Introduced as H.867)

This extensive bill updates education law, and unless otherwise noted, would be effective on July 1 of this year.  The technical corrections bill is introduced each year by the Department of Education, and is intended to deal with corrections to law that are technical in nature, and do not involve significant policy issues.  Each year, the line between “technical” and “policy” becomes blurred at some point, and the technical corrections bill becomes the vehicle through which at least a few education policy issues are addressed.  This year’s technical corrections bill is no exception to the rule. Included in its changes to education law are the following.

  • The practice of removing one-time purchase items from proposed school budgets and warning them for separate votes is acknowledged to be legal by this Act. The Act further stipulates that, in those cases, school boards can expend the authorized funds only for the warned purpose.  See amendments to 16 V.S.A. § 562(8).
  • Tuition paid to technical centers must appear separately on proposed budgets of sending schools, as is the case with assessments from supervisory unions or union school districts.  See16 V.S.A. §563(11) as amended.
  • Granby will be allowed to tuition elementary school students to New Hampshire schools, as other select towns on the New Hampshire border have been allowed in the past. See 16 V.S.A. §835.
  • School boards and supervisory union boards are currently required to carry comprehensive general liability policies.  The minimum coverage is currently determined by the Commissioner of Education.  The technical corrections bill sets the coverage minimums at $500,000 per person and $2,000,000 per occurrence.  See 16 V.S.A. §1756(b).
  • Technical center school districts are now required to employ a CPA to perform an audit annually.  See 16 V.S.A. §1577(13).
  • Essential Early Education grants will be increased each year based on the CPI for state and local government purchases as of November 15, rather than December 1. This change makes the index and date consistent with similar provisions of state law.  See 16 V.S.A. § 2948(c).
  • Homestead property tax rates will be calculated based on the ADM of the municipality in the case of a union school district, instead of the ADM of the school district.  This is considered a technical change, and is a current practice.  It is intended to clarify the Department of Education’s method of calculating member districts’ equalized pupil count based on their elementary students plus their percentage of the union secondary school ADM. See 24  V.S.A. § 4001(1) and 4001(1)(a).
  • The Excess Spending calculation by a school district that pays tuition to a designated high school will not include the portion of tuition paid that is applied to capital construction at the designated school, if the construction was approved by the State Board of Education.  See 32 V.S.A. §5401(12)(A)(ii).
  • The Commissioner of Education’s authority to determine on an annual basis whether schools are meeting state standards, and the State Board’s authority to impose sanctions required by the No Child Left Behind Act is extended through the 2007-2008 school year in order to comply with the assessment and reporting time lines required by the NCLBA.  This section of the technical corrections bill also states that “…consistent with (the NCLBA) neither the state nor any subdivision thereof shall be required to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under the Act in order to comply with the provisions of the Act.”  The same section of the technical corrections Act also states that “(I)t is the intent of the general assembly to continue to study the provisions of the federal law and to seek guidance from the federal government in order to determine permanent changes to Title 16 that will be necessary to comply with federal law and to avoid having federal law cause state and local governments to absorb the cost of unfunded mandates.”
  • The technical corrections Act contains similar extensions through 2008 of state law necessary to comply with the NCLBA provisions on homeless students. See revisions to subsections (b), (c), and (e) of Sec.3 of Act 64 of 2003 and Sec. 2 of Act 114 of 2004.
  • The Commissioners of Education and Health and Human Services are required by the technical corrections Act to analyze options for payment of educational services provided to pregnant or postpartum pupils—now referred to in the law as “pregnant or parenting” pupils—and to submit their recommendations and analysis to the General Assembly by January 30, 2007.
  • During the coming school year, school districts will be required to pay between 75 and 85 percent of the base education payment to a teen parent education program providing educational services to the district’s enrolled student or students.  The payment amount will be prorated based on the FTE of the academic courses provided.  This provision will be automatically repealed on July 1, 2007.
  • The River Valley Technical Center Governing Board is authorized to operate through July 1, 2007.
  • The Commissioner of Education is required to report to the legislature on the financial impact on a school district of special programs that are provided students with specific disabilities, such as autism or deafness, when the program is located in the district or when a district is obligated to pay for the services provided by a special program.
  • If a criminal background check made on an applicant for a license reveals no violations, the Department of Education will no longer be required to send the applicant an extensive pamphlet describing rights and other information applicable to applicants with criminal records revealed by the background check.  See 16 V.S.A. §254(c) and (d).
  • School districts will be required to include in annual reports the amount of the prior year’s Medicaid reimbursements, and the use of those funds.  See 16 V.S.A. §2959a(e).
  • The Act 150 (high school choice) sunset date of July 1, 2007 is repealed by the technical corrections Act.  This means that the requirements of Act 150 will remain in effect until altered by subsequent legislation.
  • School districts will be reimbursed 80% for each special education student in a program operated by the Vermont Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.  Under the current law, the 80% reimbursement rate does not come into effect until two students have been placed at a lower rate—56%.  The technical corrections act requires the Commissioner to approve each case before awarding reimbursement.  The Commissioner’s review is considered important in order to avoid a conflict with the requirement in federal law that prohibits state funding systems from directing placements toward a particular setting if that setting does not provide a free and appropriate education in accord with each child’s IEP.
  • Full implementation of Act 130, the 2003 union school funding law, will again be delayed another year—to July 1, 2008. 
  • The law governing the formation of union school districts has been amended to make clear that the vote to approve formation of a union district planning committee need not take place in each of the participating school districts on the same day, and to allow informal exploration by school districts of the possible formation of a union district prior to a formal vote to establish a study committee.  See §706 of Title 16.
  • School boards are explicitly granted the authority to make available school facilities and equipment for specified, appropriate public purposes by the addition of a new subsection (27) to 16 V.S.A. § 563.  The current requirement for electorate authorization to make school facilities available for public purposes--16 V.S.A. 562(11), is repealed.
  • School boards will be authorized to “…enter into contracts with other school boards to provide joint programs, services, facilities, and professional or other staff.”  The new section of Title 16 that provides this authority is Sec.563(28). 
  • Technical center school districts whose budget votes are by Australian ballot because of provisions in the final report submitted to the voters when the district was established will be required to continue to vote budgets by Australian ballot until such time as the electorate of the district votes to discontinue the practice.
  • The Commissioner of Education is directed to work with schools to develop and maintain a list of effective hazing, harassment, bullying, suicide or substance abuse prevention programs, to consult with the Human Rights Commission on qualified organizations or individuals who have not worked with schools, and to make the information so gathered available to schools on the DOE website or “in another form (the Commissioner) determines to be most appropriate.”
  • The Vernon school district will be allowed to continue paying tuition for its students in grades 7-12 to attend Massachusetts schools.
  • A Council on Civics Education made up of representatives of several organizations, including the VSA, VPA and VSBA, is formed with the intent of strengthening civics education in Vermont.  The Council will annually report on its activities.
  • Section 20 of Act 182 is nearly a technical corrections/policy study bill unto itself.  It includes several references to prominent education policy issues, either by way of requiring more study, or new study, of the particular issue.  Each of the studies referenced in Section 20 (and indicated below) is due for presentation to the General Assembly before January 30, 2007.

 

    • Subsections (a) and (b) references Act 130 of 2004 - An Act Relating to Funding of Union and Unified Union School Districts and directs the Commissioner to undertake more work associated with current weighting system for counting secondary and elementary students.  Work on the implementation of Act 130 revealed that the current weighting system may need to be adjusted to reflect the actual differences in the costs of educating secondary and elementary students.  The Commissioner has therefore been directed to “work with education administrators” to study the actual costs of providing education services and to make recommendations to the General Assembly.
    • To allow the work referenced above to occur, the provisions of Act 130 that direct the Commissioner to begin calculating two tax rates for member districts of a union school district beginning in FY2008 have been extended, and will not be applied until FY2009.
    • Subsection (c) of Section 20 direct the Commissioner to study the effect of the excess spending provisions of Title 32 § 5401 (12) and (13) on various types of schools “such as those that provide for the education of a significant portion or all of their students through paying tuition and those that have a small number of students.”  Under this subsection, the Commissioner  is also asked to consider the effect of removing the portion of secondary technical education tuition which is in excess of the district’s equalized per pupil spending from the calculation of excess spending , and the effect of removing interest payment made on funds borrowed in anticipation of construct aid. 
    • Subsection (d) asks the Commissioner to examine alternatives for computing education spending, including alternatives for counting the average daily membership and to report to the General Assembly on his findings.
    • Subsection (e) directs the Commissioner to work with educators and the state board of education to study the quality of Vermont public and independents schools which receive public funds and to study methods for reducing costs. 
    • Subsection (f) asks the Commissioner to report to the Senate and House Committees on Education regarding recommendations for amendments to Title 16 addressing school district auditing requirements, including frequency and scope.  In addressing this topic, the Commissioner is required to confer with the State Auditor of Accounts and with representatives of the Vermont Association of School Business Officials, the Vermont Superintendents Association and the Vermont School Boards Association.
    • Subsection (g) directs the Commissioner to work with high school principals and others to consider whether the Scholastic Aptitude Test or the American College Test should be used to assess student academic progress in high school grades.  The Commissioner must address whether either or both test should be used as a statewide assessment.
    • Finally, subsection (h) requires the Commissioner to “gather information which will facilitate discussion during the next legislative session about increasing the compulsory education age to 18, and (to) present the data to the Senate and House Committees on Education during January 2007.  The Commissioner’s analysis shall include dropout statistics, information about dropout prevention programs and “other information which will inform the discussion. 

 

Act 204 The “Next Generation” Initiative & Fund (Introduced as S.312)

The Governor’s Green Mountain Promise Scholarship program was substantially altered and renamed in the closing days of the session.  Act 204 is the result. It has two parts.  The first constitutes a commission to develop the “next generation initiative.”  The commission, filled by gubernatorial and legislative appointees, will study and report on strategies to encourage Vermonters to live and work in Vermont.  The commission will “study a broad range of ideas” to meet his goal, particularly with regard to Vermont’s postsecondary education system. 

 

The second part of Act 204 is the formation of a scholarship fund, the Next Generation Initiative Fund, to be supported by an appropriation of $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2007.  The money will be divided equally between VSAC, UVM, and the State Colleges, to be used for scholarships for Vermont students.  The institutions awarding the scholarships will determine the criteria for scholarship awards, with the condition that they be awarded to students only for the years when they are enrolled in one of the institutions and are working toward an undergraduate degree.

 

Act 204 also provides that if FY ’07 revenues are sufficient to exceed the budgeted needs in that year, $5M of the excess revenues will be transferred to the Next Generation Initiative and distributed in accord with “…legislative interpretation of the recommendations of the Commission charged with creating the Next Generation Initiative.”

 

Act 163 Minimum Service for Teachers and State Employees (Introduced as H.238)

This Act will increase the minimum dollar amounts provided in the retirement plans for teachers and state employees.  It also would offer state retirees a group dental insurance plan.  Finally, the bill would expand the eligibility for a service credit to some teachers or state employees who served in Vietnam.

 

Most retired employees will be allowed 50% of their average final compensation, or a pro rated amount if they have less than 30 years of service, as they are now.  However, this bill would insert as a minimum, pro rated up to 30 years of service, a $9000 allowance for teachers, or $6600 for Group A members, beginning September 1, 2006.  The minimum dollar amounts would also now automatically escalate $1000 every five years, beginning in 2011.

 

The State Treasurer is to begin offering a state retirees’ group dental insurance plan, starting on January 1, 2007.  Retiring employees would have a one-time opportunity to join the program and may not join at a later date.  Currently retired employees who are drawing a state retirement allowance would also have a one-time option to join.  “Retired employees” also includes individuals drawing allowance from their employment with the State Employees’ Association, Credit Union or the Vermont Council on the Arts, as long as they were on a dental plan at the time of retirement and have acquired 20 years of service time, or have attained the age of 62 with at least 15 years of service.  The State Treasurer would be responsible for administering the program and setting premium rates.

 

The Vietnam service language has two parts.  The first is for current employees who served in Vietnam who would be able to seek a retirement system service credit if eligible.  Any current member of the retirement system with at least 15 years of service, who does not derive a military pension but did serve in Vietnam from 1961-1975, would be able to apply for up to three years of service credit.  The second part is for already retired employees, who would be able to apply for a one time stipend of $500 for each year of service between 1961-1964.

 

Act 107 Home Study Programs (Introduced as H.862)

This Act makes several changes to the statutes governing home study in Vermont, effective for school year 2006-07.  When submitting home study enrollment notices, applicants must now include their town of residence, rather then their school district, and they may report the student’s age by year and month only. 

 

Annual progress assessments must be submitted by a licensed Vermont teacher, and include examples of work progress.  The assessment form will be standardized by the Commissioner of Education in the upcoming year.  The progress assessment must also now include the complete results of a standardized test approved by the Commissioner, who must designate at least four acceptable tests. 

 

Act 107 also requires all home study parents to submit detailed outlines or narratives showing how home study programs address the minimum course of study.  Home study students who have successfully completed two years of home study will be exempt from annually providing the detailed outline as part of their enrollment notices.  However, when a student is enrolled for his or her first year of home study at or after age 12, a narrative showing a curriculum that meets the minimum course of study requirements must be submitted, even if the student has been exempt from annual reporting in previous years.

 

H.865 Nondiscrimination (in Gender Identity or Expression)

This bill, one of two bills vetoed by Governor Douglas, would have made it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity.  Although it has been vetoed, we mention it here because it was being followed by many school administrators and school board members. The bill defined “gender identity or expression” as an individual’s “actual or perceived gender-related identity… regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.” Regarding schools, the Commissioner of Education would have been directed to revise the Department of Education’s model policy on harassment prevention to include the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression.”  School boards would have been given until August 1, 2008 to modify their own policies.  It is possible that a version of H.865 will be introduced during the next legislative biennium.

 

Education Medicaid Receipts

The FY2007 Appropriations Act (Act 215) included language in Section 289 to amend 16 V.S.A. 2959a Education Medicaid Receipts.  The language amends current law to imply an inflationary index to 2959(a)(d) which specifies that if in any preceding year, school-based Medicaid receipts exceed $25,000,000, 25% of the funds in excess of $25,000,000 will be allocated to an incentive fund created by the Department of Education. The purpose of the incentive fund is to inspire districts to achieve Medicaid participation rates of 80% or more through a process of reallocation the proceeds of the incentive fund back to school districts achieving that participation threshold.   Prior to the enactment of Section 289, the $25,000,000 was a constant number, without any inflationary adjustment.  In the future, the $25,000,000 will be annually adjusted by the cumulative price index for state and local government purchases.

 

Local Option Taxes

The Appropriations Act also includes provisions making permanent the Act 60 authorization allowing 76 cities and towns to impose a one percent room and meals and/or sales tax.  These towns and cities are those considered most adversely affected by the imposition of a state education property tax.

 

Temporary authority to impose the levy was renewed through two-year extensions to the Act 60 provisions.  This year, the General Assembly acted to make that authority permanent.

 

Towns and cities that impose the additional one percent levy keep 70% of the proceeds and provide the balance to the state.  Only four towns--Manchester, Williston, Stratton and Stowe--have approved collection of either or both of the rooms and meals and sales tax.

 

The League of Cities and Towns has made this authorization a priority.  The League will continue to advocate for increased ability of local governments to levy taxes in addition to property taxes.

 

Tax Increment Financing (Act 184)

In order to bolster Vermont’s economic development efforts, the General Assembly enacted Act 184, legislation that modifies certain provisions authorizing tax increment financing.  Tax increment financing provides funding for specific, targeted economic development projects through the dedication of tax revenue generated by a project to infrastructure expenses associated with the development.

 

Of interest to the education community, are Act 184 provisions that authorize directing education property tax receipts generated by a new development to a municipality (for purposes of paying off the debt associated with the development) rather than to the Education Fund.  Underlying this policy is the notion that economic development will ultimately create stronger tax revenues for municipal governments and for the Education Fund.

 

Act 184 specifies the criteria that a project must meet in order to utilize newly generated education property tax funds.  The Act limits the number of tax increment finance projects involving education tax receipts to ten in a five year period.  Not more than one project can be established in any single municipality.

 

To read the text of specific legislation described in this Report, go to the Legislature’s link at  http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/acts.cfm?Session=2006.  Click on the Act number.