2007 Education Legislative Review
At a press conference in February, the
Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tem of the Senate, and the Governor
stood together and announced there would be “change” to provide “property tax
relief this year,” and on May 12, n the final moments of the 2007 legislative session,
they joined again to announce a compromise school “cost-containment”
measure. The
Answering the cost question turned out to
be a challenge lawmakers found they couldn't accomplish in a winter. They
needed more information. As a result, the House proposed only modest
cost-containment measures, which [Governor]
[President
Pro Tem] Shumlin changed the political dynamic by persuading his Senate
colleagues -- just barely -- to adopt the governor's cost-containment proposal.
That gave
Although the “compromise” does
not cap school budgets in the manner initially proposed by the administration,
the education spending “benchmarks,” as they are being characterized by
legislative leaders, and the requisite supplemental budget votes in H.526
apparently satisfied the Governor. He is
expected to sign the bill into law, making the spending “benchmarks” and
divided question voting requirements effective for FY2010 school budgets.
The spending scheme in H.526 was
enacted in lieu of the House’s original plan to lower the excess spending
threshold. The threshold will remain at
125% of the prior year’s average statewide per pupil spending.
This Report describes the provisions
in H.526 as well as bills that passed both legislative houses on subjects
ranging from autism to pre-kindergarten education. All of these bills have been described in
previous Legislative Reports as they made their way through the legislative
process.
H.526
Education Quality and Cost Control
(This presentation is based on best available information at this
time. Several aspects of this bill
regarding the divided question budget process will require further
interpretation and analysis before all its implications are understood.)
Spending Targets & Supplemental Budget Votes – Sections 5-6
Effective for FY2010 school
budgets, districts that spent greater than the prior year’s statewide average
per pupil education spending will be authorized to seek only a limited increase
in per pupil expenditures without securing a second favorable vote from the
electorate. This allowable spending
increase, based on statewide average spending and an inflationary index, will
be referred to as the “maximum inflation amount,” or “MIA.” If a district board
seeks to increase spending above the MIA, it will be required to do so via a
second article on the school district warning.
School districts that in the prior year did not spend more than the
statewide average, can propose a budget increase of any size in one vote, as is
currently allowed.
MIAs and supplemental budget
votes will sunset for school years beginning in 2014-15, assuming the
Legislature does not act before then to alter or eliminate them.
A district subject to the MIA
that must budget above the MIA must gain voter approval for the above-MIA
spending in a separate ballot item. Note
that both budget votes will require simple majority approval, not a
supermajority as had been proposed by the Governor. This conforms with Speaker Symington’s stated
“bottom line” that supermajority voting requirements would not be
acceptable. H.526 proscribes that the
two budget items be warned as follows:
"School Budget
Question #1: Shall the voters of the
"School Budget
Question #2: If Question #1 is approved,
shall the voters of the
Note: The per pupil MIA can
be applied to either the prior year’s pupil count, or the pupil count for the
year in which the budget will be effective, whichever is greater. The Department of Education will be
responsible for determining both counts and informing districts. See the S.93 description below for more
details on this issue.
DIVIDED QUESTION PRIMER – DOES THIS AFFECT MY DISTRICT & HOW?
The following describes how to
calculate whether a particular district is subject to the divided question
budget approval process, and what amount of spending would be required to be
proposed in the second question.
1. MIGHT MY DISTRICT BE SUBJECT TO A DIVIDED QUESTION BUDGET?
If a district’s
per-pupil education spending was greater than the statewide average in the
prior year, yes, the next proposed budget could be subject to a divided
question. The Commissioner of Education
will be responsible for officially notifying districts whether their prior year
spending was above the statewide average.
2. WILL MY DISTRICT BE SUBJECT TO A DIVIDED QUESTION BUDGET?
If you answered
yes to question 1, and the district’s budget proposal includes spending in excess
of the maximum inflation amount (MIA), the district will be subject to a
divided question budget vote.
3. HOW DO I CALCULATE THE MAXIMUM INFLATION AMOUNT (MIA)?
Begin with the prior year’s statewide average spending per equalized pupil. As an example for illustrative purposes, assume average spending was $10,071 in FY07. Multiply that base number by the sum of the percent change in the New England Economic Project cumulative price index from the prior year (3.32% in FY08) plus 1.
$10,071 * 4.32%
= $435
Add the
resulting figure ($435 in our example) to the district’s prior year per pupil
education spending. This sum is the
district’s per pupil MIA. Multiply this
sum by the district’s pupil count to determine the district’s MIA.
The district’s
pupil count will be the larger of the following, as determined by the
Commissioner of Education: The
district’s equalized pupil count in the prior year, or the district’s equalized
pupil count in the year for which the budget is proposed.
4. WHAT AMOUNT OF THE BUDGET MUST BE WARNED IN THE FIRST
If you answered
yes to question 2, all proposed spending up to a district’s MIA must be
included in the first question, and all proposed spending in excess of a
district’s MIA must be included in the second question.
The following are examples of the calculation, as though H.526 was in
effect during the FY08 budget approval process.
A. FY07 per pupil
education spending: $11,590
B. Subject to divided
question budget vote process (Line A above $10,071)? Yes
C. FY08 per pupil
education spending MIA (Line A plus $435): $12,025
D. FY08 proposed per pupil
education spending: $12,806
F. FY07 equalized pupil
count: 1,689.85
G. FY08 equalized pupil
count: 1,649.23
H. Larger of two pupil
counts: 1,689.85
I. FY08 budget proposal
for Question #1 (Line H * Line C): $20,320,446.25
J. FY08 budget proposal
for Question #2 (Line D * Line G –
Line I): $799,593.13
Town of
A. FY07 per pupil education
spending: $11,072
B. Subject to divided
question budget vote process (Line A above $10,071)? Yes
C. FY08 per pupil education
spending MIA (Line A plus $435): $11,507
D. FY08 proposed per pupil
education spending: $12,996
F. FY07 equalized pupil
count: 154.49
G. FY08 equalized pupil
count: 151.24
H. Larger of two pupil
counts: 154.49
I. FY08 proposed budget
for Question #1 (Line H * Line C): $1,777,716.43
J. FY08 proposed budget
for Question #2 (Line D * Line G –
Line I): $187,798.61
A. FY07 per pupil
education spending: $11,273
B. Subject to divided
question budget vote process (Line A above $10,071)? Yes
C. FY08 per pupil education
spending MIA (Line A plus $435): $11,708
D. FY08 proposed per pupil
education spending: $11,519
I. FY08 proposed budget
for Question #1 (Line H * Line C): N/A
J. FY08 proposed budget
for Question #2 (Line D * Line G –
Line I): N/A
Brookfield would vote on the budget proposal as one question, as is
current practice.
Town of
A. FY07 per pupil
education spending: $9,861
B. Subject to divided
question budget vote process (Line A above $10,071)? No
C. FY08 per pupil education
spending MIA (Line A plus $435): N/A
I. FY08 proposed budget
for Question #1 (Line H * Line C): N/A
J. FY08 proposed budget
for Question #2 (Line D * Line G –
Line I): N/A
Windsor would vote on the budget proposal as one question, as is current practice.
OTHER PROVISIONS OF H.526
Property Tax Adjustment Cap – Sections 2-3
The property
tax adjustment (i.e. prebate plus rebate) for an individual is currently capped
at $10,000 for a single year. H.526
lowers this cap to $8,000, beginning with claims filed in 2008.
FY2008 Property Tax Rates – Section 4
H.526 lowers
the statewide education property tax rates two additional cents for FY2008
only. Lawmakers had already lowered
rates this year in Act 17, and combined with H.526, the state-wide homestead
property tax rate will be $0.87 and the nonresidential rate will be $1.36.
Grade Level Weighting – Sections 7-9
The secondary
pupil weighting, currently 1.25, will be reduced to 1.13, effective for the
upcoming school year. According to an
analysis by the Department of Education, the new weighting will more accurately
reflect the actual cost of educating high school students, and will be
implemented in tandem with provisions of Act 130, the law that separates union
high school costs from member district costs for purposes of showing how tax
rates are arrived at.
This provision
also directs the Commissioner of Education to study the accuracy of the grade
level weights every second year, and to recommend changes, if any.
Fiscal Review of High Spending Special Education Districts – Section 10
The
Commissioner of Education is directed by H.526 to identify high spending
special education districts annually.
The Commissioner must then conduct a performance review of each
identified district, and if he determines the results to be unsatisfactory, the
Commissioner and the district must jointly develop a remediation plan.
The district
would then have two years to make progress deemed “satisfactory” to the
Commissioner. If the district does not
make satisfactory progress after two years, it would be subject to an annual
withholding of 10% of its special education reimbursement. Before facing withholding, the district would
be required to “explain to the State Board of Education either the reasons the
district believes it made satisfactory progress on the remediation plan or
reasons it failed to do so.” The Board’s
decision related to withholding reimbursement will be final. Once satisfactory progress has been made,
only the prior year’s special education withholding would be provided to the district.
School Districts; Analysis and Recommendations Regarding High Spending
- Section 11
This section directs the Commissioner of Education to study factors contributing to school districts exceeding the excess spending threshold, and to develop recommendations for exemptions in specific circumstances associated with high special education costs and tuition costs when most or all students attend schools outside the district.
Notice to Taxpayers – Section 12
Beginning next
year, every tax bill mailed to taxpayers will include a two-page flyer intended
to educate recipients on the relationship between school spending and education
property tax rates. The flyer has
already been designed by House Education Committee chair Janet Ancel and
others, and its subtitle is, “The more you spend, the more you pay.”
Cost Drivers – Section 13
The Joint
Fiscal Office (JFO) will annually study cost drivers in education spending. The study will include an analysis of health
benefits, special education spending, and other specific areas. Reports to the House & Senate Education
Committees will be due annually on December 1, and a preliminary report will be
due this June 1.
Operational Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Dept. of Education –
Section 14
A committee will
be created to select a qualified entity to evaluate the Department of Education
(DOE) and propose ways to increase its efficiency. The evaluation will include the effectiveness
of communication between the DOE and the field, identification of redundancies,
and the creation of an ongoing strategic planning process that allows for constant
review. The evaluator will report to the
committee as well as to the House & Senate Committees on Education in
December. The committee will be chaired
by the Commissioner of Education or his designee, and include a member from
each of our associations, the Vt-NEA, the VCSEA, VASBO, and the Vermont
Business Roundtable.
Provision of Special Education Services; Study – Section 15
The Joint
Fiscal Office (JFO) is directed to study the how the Agency of Human Services,
the Department of Education, and the Department of Employment and Training
should provide for special education services for persons under 22 years of
age. In conducting the study, the JFO is
directed to consult with the agencies named above, our associations, and a wide
array of other educational stakeholders.
The study will identify human service functions now performed by public
schools, and provide a method for calculating the cost of those functions. The study will also look at how Medicaid
funds are used in schools. The JFO will
report to the Legislature by November 1.
Educational Services Funded by Medicaid; Study – Section 16
The Joint
Fiscal Office (JFO) will also study how to maximize Medicaid funds by ensuring
all eligible students are enrolled. The
JFO will consult with relevant state agencies and report to the Legislature by
December 1. The study will include
estimates of the number of children who lose coverage due to non-payment of
Medicaid premiums.
Mandates; Report – Section 17
The Legislative
Council and the Joint Fiscal Office are directed to study requirements placed
on school districts resulting from state and federal laws and regulations
implemented since 1997. The examination will
quantify the effects on staffing, interagency cost shifts, and financial
implications of the laws and regulations.
The offices will consult with our associations and other educational
stakeholders when conducting the study, and report to the House & Senate
Committees on Education by December 1.
Financial Management of
The
Commissioner of Education, in consultation with the VSA, VSBA and VASBO, will
examine the systems of financial management school districts use, and the range
of training and expertise held by school business officers. The Commissioner will develop proposals to
ensure that all school districts use high quality financial management
practices, and consider ways to integrate these systems, including the
financial implications of his proposals.
The Commissioner will also consider whether to consolidate business
officers at the supervisory union level.
A report is due on November 15 to the General Assembly.
Education Governance – Section 19
H.526 directs the Commissioner of Education to report to the Legislature on the findings from the on-going public discussions of his White Paper on Education Governance issued in May of 2006. The report would outline the Commissioner’s proposals for governance restructuring, if any. Additionally, the Commissioner must request that our associations and the Vermont-NEA submit recommendations for restructuring, if any, and he will include those recommendations in his report. The recommendations from the associations may be developed jointly or independently.
School Construction Aid – Section 20
When reviewing a preliminary application for approval of a school construction project, the Commissioner of Education must, under H.526, consider “regional educational opportunities and needs, including school building capacities across school district boundaries… economic efficiencies… and the strategic plan of the state board of education.” This provision was included in H.526 at the request of the Commissioner in order to give him more authority in the pre-approval stages of construction projects.
Special Education Extraordinary Reimbursement – Sections 21-22
Currently the State reimburses 90% of special education costs above $50,000 for an individual student. H.526 removes the 10% local share from the district’s calculation of excess spending. This section will be effective this year in order to be reflected in the excess spending penalties applied in FY09.
State-placed Students; 100% Reimbursement – Sections 23-24
A school district may, if it chooses to do so, claim 100% reimbursement from the Department of Education for all special education costs, including mainstream costs, for educating a state-placed student effective FY09. The district may also claim reimbursement for costs incurred while educating state-placed students who are not eligible for special education but who have “special needs” such as those that might be addressed through Section 504 plans.
Special Education; Best Practices – Sections 25-26
Based on legislative assumptions that collaboration does not already take place, the Commissioner of Education is required to encourage collaboration among school districts to share information regarding low incidence special education needs.
Section 26 reiterates the long-standing state policy that integrated special education services are recognized as an essential responsibility of the education system.
Rolling Reappraisal Study – Section 27
The Director of
the Division of Property Valuation & Review in the Department of Taxes will
“study the feasibility of adopting a statewide system of rolling reappraisals
on a three- or five-year basis.” A
rolling reappraisal system, combined with a reduced reliance on the common
level of appraisal, may more accurately reflect property value for the purpose
of taxation, and the House Ways & Means Committee initiated the inclusion
of this study in H.526.
Small Schools Grants – Section 28
This section
will allow recently consolidated schools to continue to receive
Collective Bargaining at the Supervisory Union Level – Sections 29-41
The bill requires all school boards within a supervisory union to bargain jointly with all employee bargaining units in the supervisory union. Any negotiated agreement would be subject to a ratification vote by each member district board separately. Failure of a board to ratify would result in further negotiation between that board and its employees only. Separate provisions as to pay or any other conditions of employment for individual school districts within a supervisory union could be incorporated into the supervisory union-wide agreement.
Two types of
school districts are exempt from this collective bargaining requirement. 1) School districts within a supervisory
union that has more than one public high school. 2) School districts that maintain a school
but do not offer grades 9 – 12, are not members of a union high school
district, and are in a supervisory union that includes a K-12 district. The theory behind these exemptions is that
they comprise examples of supervisory unions whose member districts do not have
common concerns related to students or employees.
S.93
Miscellaneous Changes to Education Law
This annual bill, often referred to as the
“technical corrections bill,” contains revisions to education law that are not
considered major policy shifts. Many of
the numerous provisions in this year’s bill have been suggested by the
Department of Education. The bill has
passed the Legislature and we expect the Governor to sign it into law.
§
The
Senate version had considered revising the public
bid law as it applies to services, such as insurance, legal or
architectural services, but this provision was not included in the final
version of S.93. Current law remains,
and professional services, including architectural and legal services, are not subject
to the bidding requirements of 16 V.S.A. §559.
§
The
public bid law states that if the two competing contract bids are within one
percent of each other, the board may award the contract to either bidder. S.93 clarifies that this 1% requirement
applies to the bid amounts at the time of submission.
§
Schools
that receive tuitioning students are authorized by S.93 to enter into tuition agreements with sending districts
above or below allowable tuition rates, so long as the receiving district
offers the same arrangement to all sending districts. Individual sending districts will not be
obligated to accept the arrangement and can pay the allowable amount.
§
S.93
clarifies that state transportation aid
for students traveling between schools and technical centers may also be used
to support students traveling from a school to a technical center satellite
location.
§
S.93
clarifies that state salary assistance
for technical center assistant principals is available only to centers that
have a full-time equivalent enrollment of at least 150 students.
§
Districts
that are subject to the excess spending
threshold will be allowed to expend up to $5000 of the threshold penalty, once
every five years, to hire budget consultants, to hire energy or facilities
consultants, or to engage in reorganization or consolidation discussions with
other districts.
§
S.93
specifies that the Commissioner of Education must make the annual determination
of how much per equalized pupil education spending constitutes “excess
spending” by November 15.
§
S.93
exempts any tuitioning school district with 20 or fewer students from the
excess spending penalty in any year in which the penalty is “solely attributable to new special
education spending.” No indication
is given in the law as to how that determination is to be made.
§
S.93
permanently allows the Commissioner of Education to continue to expend, at his
discretion, up to two percent of special education funds to directly assist
schools with unusual or unexpected special education costs.
§
Beginning
in the 2007-08 school year, S.93 will shift the annual school enrollment census period from the first 40 student
days of school to a 20-day census, beginning on the 11th student
day. This shift is being made to allow
the Department of Education to report to school districts on their equalized
pupil counts sooner. In turn, this would
allow districts more time to plan their budgets. The amendment would also clarify that a state-placed
student can be counted in a district’s average daily membership in each year
following his or her enrollment.
§
In
conjunction with the previous provision, the Commissioner of Education would be
directed to report to districts on their
initial equalized pupil count by December 1, and to report the final count
by December 15.
§
S.93
also repeals the 20-day census, and reverts back to a 40-day census, beginning with the 2009-10 school year. Presumably this provision will ensure that
the length of the census period remains an ongoing legislative priority.
§
The
Department of Education is directed to develop a system for determining school district membership count based
on samplings. The DOE must consult with
the VSA, VSBA, and VASBO, and report to the Legislature by
§
The
Department of Education is directed to analyze and recommend a process by which
the state could offer distance-learning
opportunities to all schools. The
Department is directed to report to the General Assembly by next year, and
include a fiscal analysis of the funding required to implement any recommendations.
§
S.93
includes a one-year measure that would compel school districts with resident pregnant and parenting pupils to pay
teen parent education programs for any educational services provided. The reimbursement would be between 75 and 85%
of the base education payment for a full year of services, or a pro rata amount
for teens attending less than one year.
If a pregnant or parenting teen is enrolled in a school district other
than his or her district of residence, the resident district will pay between
15 and 25% of the base education payment to the enrolling school for
coordinating the pupil’s educational services.
The Commissioner of Education will settle any disputes arising from this
process. The Commissioner is directed to
report to the House and Senate Education Committees regarding recommendations
for future funding options in this area, as this provision will expire
§
S.93
removes from the calculation of excess spending any budget deficit that results from a tuitioning district paying
tuition on behalf of a student who moves into the district after the budget was
passed, effective for school year 2007-08.
§
S.93
extends a provision awarding transition
aid for consolidating school districts, and moves up the date when the
award would be granted. After voter
approval of the establishment of a union or interstate school district, the
Commissioner of Education will pay the consolidated school district either
$150,000, or 5% of the base education payment multiplied by the combined
enrollment of the districts, whichever is less.
This provision will sunset on
In the final two weeks of the
session, the members of the House and Senate resolved their differences and
approved a bill that will allow any school district providing or electing to
begin an in-house pre-kindergarten program or to contract for pre-kindergarten
services with a qualified provider, and to count at least some of the students
in the district’s average daily membership (
·
“Early childhood education” is defined to mean
services based on
·
Rules, to be effective for the 2008-09 school
year, shall be jointly developed and agreed to by the Commissioners of
Education and the Department of Children and Families (DCF), and adopted by the
State Board of Education as follows:
o
To ensure that a collaborative needs-assessment
process in districts contemplating the establishment or expansion of an early
education program occurs.
o
A process to ensure that a district will use
“existing qualified service providers to the extent that existing qualified
service providers have the capacity to meet the district’s needs effectively
and efficiently.”
o
Ensure that opportunities are provided by school
districts for effective parental participation in the pre-kindergarten program.
o
A process for parents or early education
providers, located inside or outside a district, to petition a district to
enter into an early education services contract with a provider.
o
To identify services for which State funds may
be expended when pre-kindergarten children are counted for purposes of average
daily membership (
o To ensure that school districts receive reports on the costs of pre-kindergarten program from contracting providers, and to ensure that districts report these costs to the Commissioner of Education.
o To ensure the reporting by school districts of identifiable costs for pre-kindergarten programs and essential early education programs in their annual budgets and reports to their communities.
o
To require school districts to report to both
departments their annual pre-kindergarten spending, specifying all sources of
funding.
o To develop an appeals process for parents or providers to challenge the actions of school districts if they believe the district is violating statutes or rules.
o
To establish a process to document the progress of
children enrolled in pre-kindergarten programs to be used by public and private
providers in annual reports to the Commissioner of Education.
o
To establish quality standards that
pre-kindergarten programs must meet in order to enroll students who will be
included in a district’s
§ At a minimum, the standard for early education providers will be: 1) NAEYC accreditation, or 2) At least four stars in the DCF Stars system with at least two points in all five categories, or 3) Three stars with an approved plan to achieve four stars, and at least two points in all five categories, within three years.
§
A licensed center must have at least one
licensed and endorsed early education teacher, and registered homes must have “regular
and active supervision and training” from a licensed and endorsed early
education teacher.
· The moratorium enacted last year that prohibited the State Board of Education from adopting rules regarding early childhood and pre-kindergarten education is repealed.
· Nothing in this act will require a school district to begin a pre-kindergarten program.
· DCF will continue to license all private and public pre-kindergarten programs.
· The respective jurisdictions and duties of the Department of Education and the DCF will be established as outlined in a 1999 Memorandum of Understanding between the departments.
·
Both Commissioners must file a report to the
Legislature by
·
The legislatively established Pre-kindergarten
Study Committee that met last summer and produced a report for this year’s
legislative session will continue to meet until
·
Districts will have as many as four options when
determining how to count pre-kindergarten students in their
1. Enrollment Limit Formula
2. Flat Limit Formula
3. Total Four Year Olds
4. Established Program Levels
A
district that offered pre-kindergarten services in the 2006-07 school year has
an additional option. This district may
count the total number of enrolled pre-kindergarten children, as long that
total does not exceed the number of children counted in the district’s
S.51
Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity
The Legislature has passed and
the Governor has signed S.51, a bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender
identity. As defined in the bill, gender
identity means “an individual’s actual or perceived gender identity, or
gender-related characteristics intrinsically related to an individual’s gender
or gender-identity, regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.” S.51 prohibits hiring and employment
discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
S.51 also requires school districts to revise their policies on harassment, requiring them to specifically reference gender identity. The Commissioner of Education will provide districts with an updated model harassment policy by August 1, and districts will have two years from that date to amend their individual policies. The VSBA will be involved in the development of the model policy.
S.13
Bus Idling on School Grounds
The Legislature agreed this year
on a bill intended to limit bus idling on school grounds. S.13 directs the State Board of Education
(SBE) to adopt rules that generally limit idling, with necessary exceptions to
ensure the warmth and well being of the driver and passengers. The SBE must consult with the Agency of
Natural Resources, the Department of Health, and the Department of Motor
Vehicles in developing the regulations. By
referring the details to the rule-making process, the legislation assures that
there will be a statutorily required evaluation of the “...cost implications to
local school districts and school taxpayers.” The rules will be effective as
soon as they are adopted. The
rule-making process usually takes six to eight months to complete, and the bill
was signed into law on May 25th.
S.13 also
directs the Department of Education to make available to districts a model
idling policy for vehicles other than school busses by
Act
35 - Enhancing Vermont’s System of Care for Individuals with Autism Spectrum
Disorders (S.121)
Act 35, formerly S.121 and signed
into law this week, directs the Secretary of the Agency of Human Services (AHS) and the Commissioner of Education to
jointly develop an interagency proposal for a life-long system of care to
address autism spectrum disorders (
The
proposed plan would include an examination of the range of autism diagnoses and
needs, current practices in care, model practices, and other
considerations. The plan would then
detail how existing resources might be redirected to support the system, and
would facilitate collaboration among schools, state agencies, stakeholders and
others in providing
Act
31 - A Statewide School Year Calendar (H. 15)
This session the legislature considered several different state-wide school calendar approaches. Among others, proposals were put forth to strengthen the current regional calendar system, and to require the Commissioner of Education develop and mandate a statewide calendar to be followed by all school districts. In the closing days of the session, the General Assembly agreed to a plan proposed by Sen. Don Collins and the Governor has signed the bill into law. Collins’s statewide calendar will be created by a committee that will put forward a statewide school calendar to the State Board of Education (SBE) for approval.
The calendar committee will be
chaired by the Commissioner of Education or his designee, and include two
representatives each from the VSA, VPA, and VSBA, as well as the Vt-NEA, two
technical center directors, two representatives of the Vermont Business
Roundtable, and two high school students.
The committee is directed to develop a uniform statewide calendar that
includes the following:
·
175 common student days, during each of which a majority of students in each grade must
attend for a minimum of 5 ½ hours.
·
The first three student days must occur on the Tuesday through Thursday before Labor Day.
·
Five common
assessment days, at least one of which shall be organized by the Department
of Education.
·
Provisions for communities to petition the SBE to
deviate from the calendar “due to unique
regional circumstances that cannot otherwise be accommodated.”
·
A possibility that there be a sole vacation
period between January 2 and April 30 to occur during Town Meeting week.
The committee must engage in a
public process with the education and business communities, and other
interested parties, in developing the calendar proposal, including at least
five regional meetings. In addition,
technical center directors will be charged with convening a meeting of
principals from the center’s sending schools to develop regional
recommendations for presentation to the calendar committee.
The calendar committee is also
charged with recommending to the legislature an appropriate financial penalty to be imposed on
noncompliant districts.
Beginning
H.405
Capital Construction and State Bonding
The Governor has signed this
annual bill authorizing construction aid.
State Aid for School Construction; Suspension – Section 36 & 38
As anticipated, the Capital
Construction bill includes a moratorium on school construction aid. The Commissioner of Education is directed to
not accept, review or act on any applications for state aid for school
construction, unless a local electorate voted to approve the project prior to