The 2011 session of the General Assembly was bookended by
the election of a new Governor, former state senator Peter Shumlin, and an
orderly Friday afternoon adjournment. In
between, hot topics included balancing the budget – a task that began with the
state facing a large deficit – and steps towards healthcare reform, a high
priority for the Governor.
The education committees’ policy debates
centered on the usual mix of process (e.g., hiring procedures, school athlete
head injuries) and priorities (e.g., prekindergarten, mentoring). Education finance policy was addressed at the
beginning of the session when Gov. Shumlin promised to keep school district Challenges for Change targets voluntary,
but also announced that General Fund support for the Education Fund would be
reduced. Notably, there was no major
legislation approved that would affect last year’s voluntary school merger bill,
Act 153. A number of education bills
were given serious consideration but not finalized or approved this year,
including a proposed change to the process leading to appointment of
Commissioners of Education.
Notable bills that were not approved are detailed in the
final section of this report; we begin with legislation that will take effect.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT056.pdf
H.264, a bill that primarily concerns motor vehicle law, became
the mechanism to advance legislation pertaining to hiring procedures for
employers whose employees work with minors or vulnerable adult
populations. H.264 repeals the requirement that these employers, including school
districts, contact each of a prospective employee’s current or former employers
over the prior ten years and seek written responses regarding the person’s work
history (the so-called “ten-year look-back”); that requirement had been
scheduled to become effective July 1 of this year. H.264 replaced
that requirement with a new provision of law extending immunity from
liability to current or former employers who share certain work-history
information with prospective employers.
The provision provides immunity from liability to current or
former employers who lawfully share “job performance” information with
prospective employers only if the prospective employer’s employees
work with minors or vulnerable adults (naturally, all school districts meet
this standard). This provision is effective
July 1, 2011 and will be codified as 21 V.S.A. § 308. The immunity is void if the current or former
employer knowingly discloses false or misleading information, or if the
information is disclosed in violation of other laws.
Job performance is defined in the law as:
• Suitability
of the employee for employment;
• The
employee’s work-related duties, skills, abilities, attitude, effort, knowledge,
and habits as they may relate to suitability for future employment;
• In
the case of a former employee, the reason for the employee’s separation; and
• Any
illegal or wrongful act committed by the employee.
If the job performance information is shared in writing, the
current or former employer must also provide a copy to the employee.
Our Associations will be providing school officials with
more information on this new provision of law and its implications for school
district hiring practices.
The Legislature has directed its legal office to produce a
report on the immunity provision by January 2013. The report will include an evaluation of
whether the immunity provision increases the amount of job performance
information shared between employers.
The immunity provision is set to expire on July 1, 2013;
however, it is likely that Legislature will act in some way prior to the
expiration date, either modifying the law or extending the period for which it
is effective.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT031.pdf
S.2 makes two simple, but critical, changes to the
procedures for hiring school employees, effective immediately.
First, S.2 requires that a superintendent or an independent
school headmaster obtain information from the Child Protection Registry and the
Vulnerable Adult Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Registry for prospective
employees, contractors who may have unsupervised contact with schoolchildren, or
any other person for whom a criminal record check is already required.
The requirement to perform registry checks on prospective
employees had been previously approved by the Legislature in 2009 and was scheduled
to take effect December 31, 2010 but, due to missteps in the legislative
drafting process, it did not become effective until the enactment of S.2 this
year. This issue was the subject of a
memorandum from Commissioner of Education Armando Vilaseca issued July 1,
2010. In that memo, the Commissioner
urged districts to begin performing the checks and provided additional detail
about the process that led to the delayed implementation of the law. Here is a link to the memo for reference:
http://education.vermont.gov/new/pdfdoc/dept/commissioner_memos/educ_memo_070110_abuse_registry_checks.pdf
Note that a person is not categorically barred from school
employment if there is information about his or her background contained in
either of these registries.
School districts and supervisory unions can conduct both
registry searches simultaneously online.
Visit the following web link to register your district and perform the
required checks:
http://www.ahsnet.ahs.state.vt.us/abc/SubscriberHome.cfm
Second, S.2 does
categorically ban any person from employment with a Vermont school district or
independent school who is convicted of a crime that requires registration on
Vermont’s sex offender registry. The ban
includes contractors who may have unsupervised contact with school children and
student teachers. Any convictions for
sexual offenses will be listed in a prospective employee’s criminal record
check that schools are already required to perform.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT020.pdf
The Legislature has approved H.430, a bill that will require
school districts to provide mentoring supports for new principals and technical
center directors. H.430 also commissions
a study on mentoring services for new teachers.
H.430 requires superintendents to ensure that a newly hired
principal or technical center director receive mentoring supports for at least
two years if that person has not previously worked in that capacity in his or
her career. (The bill neither prohibits
nor requires mentoring for experienced school administrators, including
experienced administrators taking a new job.) Appropriate mentoring supports must be
consistent with research based approaches, best practices, or other successful
models and will be identified jointly by the VPA and the VSA. The district will be required to allocate
sufficient funds for mentoring from professional development funds, grant
funds, or other sources. The bill is
applicable beginning with employment contracts for the 2012-13 academic year.
The second part of H.430 will require a new committee to
study how Vermont “inducts and mentors” new teachers and to recommend
legislative changes that would increase teacher skills and improve retention
within the profession. The committee
will be comprised of members of the Vermont Standards Board for Professional
Educators, the Vermont-NEA, our Associations, and persons working in educator
preparation programs. The Commissioner
of Education will convene the committee’s first meeting no later than August 1,
2011 and the committee must submit a report to the Legislature by January 1,
2012. If you are interested in serving
on the committee, contact your association.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT038.pdf
S.53, a bill that repeals the current-law
cap on the number of prekindergarten children that school districts can count
in their average daily membership (ADM), has been approved. This change does not require districts to
provide prekindergarten services. It
does allow a district that operates a program or contracts for prekindergarten
services to include all eligible, enrolled children in its ADM.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT058.pdf
S.100, a miscellaneous education bill, has been approved by
the Legislature.
A number of the bill’s provisions make technical changes to
Title 16 and others pertain solely to higher education. What follows is a description of the sections
of the bill that substantively pertain to PK-12 education.
•
Section 22 allows supervisory unions to receive
state and federal foodservice grants on behalf of their member school
districts.
•
Section 23 adds a section to Title 16 concerning
dual enrollment (16 V.S.A. § 913). The
section states that secondary schools will award credit to students for
successful completion of postsecondary courses when the student has received
prior approval from his or her school.
The secondary school determines the amount of credit awarded, including
to what extent the course may count towards the student’s graduation
requirements. Section 24 of S.100
declares that it is a policy of the State to increase access to expanded
learning opportunities for students including dual enrollment courses.
•
Section 32 allows a school district electorate,
in a special warned article, to authorize a five-year window for its school
board to incur debt for energy efficiency projects when the annual cost of the
project is less than the energy savings.
The anticipated cost savings would have to be certified by Efficiency
Vermont or an independent licensed engineer or architect. The total debt incurred in any three-year
period must be less than $350,000 per school building. The term length for the bonded indebtedness
cannot exceed ten years.
•
Section 34 extends by one year the final date
for full implementation of sections 9-12 of Act 153 of 2010, from July 1, 2012
to July 1, 2013. Sections 9-12 concern the
new duties of supervisory union boards and superintendents pertaining to
provision of services including special education, transportation, professional
development, and hiring procedures among other related matters. Nothing in the law prohibits districts from
completing this transition prior to July 1, 2013.
Language in section 18 retains the
collective bargaining rights of transportation workers when the authority for
provision of transportation transitions from school districts to supervisory
unions pursuant to Act 153 of 2010.
Editor’s
Note: Section 18 and Section 34 of S.100 also were approved by the Legislature
in a separate bill, H.428. The language is exactly the same in both
bills.
•
Sections 35-37 concern off-campus harassment and
bullying, including “cyberbullying.” Section 35 expands the definition of
harassment in Title 16 to include harassment by electronic means. Section 36 expands the definition of
bullying in Title 16 to include bullying by electronic means, and to include
bullying that occurs off school grounds if the behavior “can be shown to pose a
clear and substantial interference with another student’s right to access
educational programs.” Section 37 expands
the definition of misconduct for which a school may suspend or expel a
student to include misconduct off school grounds if the misconduct “can be
shown to pose a clear and substantial interference with another student’s right
to access educational programs.”
•
Section 38 directs the Department of Education,
in consultation with other parties, to “integrate the value added food
processing sectors, including meat cutting and processing” into programs of
study at technical education centers.
S.100 includes a provision addressing procedures for
managing concussions and other head injuries sustained by students participating
in public school and approved independent school athletic teams. The language addresses information for
parents and youth athletes, training for coaches, and procedures for managing
student athletes exhibiting symptoms of concussion. This provision is effective beginning with
the fall 2011 sports season.
S.100 requires the Commissioner of Education, with
assistance from the VPA, to develop guidelines and materials to educate
coaches, youth athletes and parents regarding concussions and head
injuries. School principals or
headmasters are required to ensure that, 1) the guidelines are provided to
athletes and parents, 2) that athletes and parents sign a form acknowledging
receipt of the information prior to the athlete’s participation in team
activities, and 3) that each team coach receive training on how to recognize
the symptoms of concussion at least once every two years.
If an athlete has been removed from team activities because
he or she is exhibiting symptoms of concussions, the team coach is prohibited
from allowing the athlete to return to team activities until the athlete has
received written permission from a licensed healthcare provider. The licensed healthcare provider must be
trained in the evaluation and management of concussions and other head
injuries. The bill does not specifically
state that a coach must remove a player from team activities if he or she is exhibiting
signs or symptoms of having sustained a concussion, however, the required
training for coaches will say just that.
This provision of S.100 is applicable to K-12
school-sponsored athletic teams.
Recreation league teams and other groups that may use school property
are not subject to the requirements. The
VPA will work with the Department of Education to ensure that all public and
approved independent schools receive model guidelines, forms, and training information
prior to the upcoming fall sports season.
S.100 includes three studies for the Department of Education
(DOE) to investigate with reports due January 15, 2012, in time for next year’s
legislative session.
•
The DOE, in consultation with VSA and other
interested parties , is directed to study options for
how delivery of driver’s education could be restructured.
•
The DOE is directed to report on current and
planned use of technology in schools, including a report on schools’ access to
broadband internet and students’ access to flexible learning environments,
among other issues.
•
The DOE and the Department for Children and
Families, in consultation with other interested parties, is directed to study
the statutes and rules regarding prekindergarten education with the intent of making
recommendations to simplify the process for providing prekindergarten.
Editor’s Note: There
are six other studies of interest to school districts commissioned by the
Legislature this year. Each of the six
are described elsewhere in this report, but for reference, here is the bill
number and a brief description of the study subject: S.96, summer unemployment
compensation for school-year-only employees; S.96, 12-month payment of wages
for school employees; H.430, teacher mentoring; H.73, public records issues;
H.436, education finance; H.446, moratorium on state aid for school
construction.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT050.pdf
Earlier
in the session, the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and
General Affairs held hearings on the feasibility of granting unemployment
benefits to school-year employees during summer months. Our Associations opposed that proposal
because the multimillion-dollar annual unemployment insurance cost to school
districts was at odds with the call for spending restraint coming from state
policymakers and local communities. That
provision was not included in any committee-approved bill this year.
Two
bills under consideration in the Legislature this year (H.238 and S.95) would
have enabled school district employees, including school-year-only employees,
to elect to have their wages paid over a 12-month period. Our Associations opposed these provisions
because it would add administrative burden and complexity to the payroll
process at a time that school districts are being asked to reduce
administrative costs. Neither bill was
approved this year. H.238 resides in the
House Committee on General, Housing and Military Affairs. S.95 was approved by the Senate and currently
resides in the House Committee on Rules because the bill did not meet
“crossover.”
S.96,
a bill concerning workers compensation that was approved by the Legislature,
became a vehicle for a summer study committee to examine both of the issues
described in the preceding paragraphs.
The Commissioner of Labor, in consultation with the VSBA and other
interested parties, is directed to study the “issue” of enabling school-year
employees to receive unemployment benefits during summer months. The study is to consider the costs of this
benefit, which employees should be eligible, and other relevant issues. The Commissioner of Labor is also directed to
study the “issue” of allowing school year employees to elect to have their
wages paid over the course of a calendar year.
The studies are due January 15, 2012.
Our Associations will monitor developments related to these studies and
report to our members as appropriate.
Editor’s Note: The
information in this article is provided courtesy of the Vermont School Boards
Insurance Trust.
Sweeping health care reforms passed at the federal and state
level in 2010 and 2011, and there will be more to come. The federal legislation, The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, was enacted in March, and H.202, Vermont’s
health care reform bill, received approval during this year’s legislative
session.
This legislation requires:
1.
Health insurers to offer dependent coverage to
age 26;
2.
Insurance companies to eliminate lifetime and
annual benefit restrictions;
3.
Employers to include health insurance costs on
W-2s;
4.
States to create or join an “insurance exchange”
for individuals and small employers that becomes operational in January, 2014;
5.
Employers to notify employees of these health
care options by March of 2013.
The law also allows certain employers and groups to elect
the “grandfather option,” which allows them to keep their current health care
plans relatively unchanged. The Vermont
Education Health Initiative (VEHI) elected the grandfather option. The rules covering this are detailed. Look for an upcoming memorandum from VEHI
explaining them and related matters.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT048.pdf
H.202 authorizes the creation of the exchange mandated by
the federal law. The establishment and
operation of the exchange is assigned to the Office of Vermont Health
Access. As mentioned earlier, the
exchange will provide health insurance coverage to individuals and small
employers first, in 2014. Large
employers are permitted to enroll in 2017.
Definitions of “small” and “large” employers will be addressed in
forthcoming state legislation.
Further, H.202 lays the foundation for a “Universal and
Unified Health Care System” (what some call “single payer”) in the coming
years. The latter is predicated on the
state receiving federal waivers and identifying other needed revenue
sources. Additionally, H.202:
1.
Requires the creation of a five-member health
care board (the Green Mountain Care Board) to oversee the state’s health care
system;
2.
Includes payment and delivery reforms and cost
containment strategies;
3.
Mandates tighter regulation of hospital budgets
and the creation of a system that will measure performance.
1.
School districts must extend dependency coverage
to age 26. (Districts, with VEHI’s
assistance, began complying with this requirement last summer.)
2.
There will be new compliance rules involving W-2
reporting. VEHI will help districts meet this obligation by 2012.
3.
Employers must notify employees on the availability
of the health care exchange by March 2013.
VEHI will assist you in developing the notice.
4.
Rules covering “grandfathered” plans partially
limit an affected employer’s capacity to reduce its contribution to the cost of
health insurance for its employees. It
also allows them to retain most of what their current plans offer. These rules and their implications will be
explained in an upcoming VEHI memorandum.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT040.pdf
The state chose to develop a bond to provide capital
construction project aid over a two-year period for FY 2012-13, altering a
long-standing practice of bonding each year.
The state could choose to amend its appropriation of construction aid in
the 2012 session; however, there is language in the bill stating that it is the
“intent” of the General Assembly not to amend the school construction
appropriation.
H.446, the capital bill, would appropriate $7.425M for
school construction aid in each year of the biennium for a total of $14.85M. Department of Education figures indicate that
the total outstanding aid that the state owes to districts is $28.1M so the
proposed two-year appropriation would pay 51 percent of the aid owed while
setting aside $600,000 for emergency aid.
On an annualized basis, the state aid appropriated in H.446 is more than
the appropriation in FY 2011 ($6.4M) and less in FY 2010 ($10.3M).
To see the Department of Education’s estimate of aid each
eligible district will receive in FY 2012, visit this link: http://education.vermont.gov/new/excel/pgm_construction/EDU-Schhol_Construction_Estimated_Payouts_for_FY12.xls
H.446 also directs the Department of Education to report to
the Legislature on the cost of lifting the ongoing moratorium on state aid for
school construction (all projects receiving aid this year were approved prior
to the moratorium’s enactment in 2007 or were exempt). The Department is directed to report on
estimated demand for new projects, how other states fund school construction,
and alternative funding formulas. The
report is also to include a recommendation for a date on which the state should
repeal the moratorium.
Finally, H.446 allows the provision of law enabling school
consolidation construction projects to receive 50 percent state aid to continue
for an additional two years. All school
consolidation projects approved by the Department by June 30, 2013 will be
eligible for 50 percent reimbursement, notwithstanding the moratorium.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT063.pdf
H.441 is this year’s edition of the state’s annual appropriations
bill, which allocates most state government funds for FY 2012. Among many other items, H.441 includes
regular state funding for school districts, categorical aid for districts, and funding
for the teachers’ retirement system. Three
line items in the state budget of are particular note to districts this year
and they are as follows.
The General Fund transfer to the Education Fund will be $276.24M
in FY 2012, and this amount will be the new base transfer amount that will
increase by an inflationary factor in future years. After nonresidential and residential property
taxes, the General Fund transfer is the third-largest source of funding for PK-12
public education in Vermont. This $276M
figure in FY 2012 is roughly what was expected based on Gov. Shumlin’s public
statements in late December 2010 that we reported on in our first Education Legislative Report this session. In brief, Gov. Shumlin promised that the
$23.2M in Challenges for Change FY
2012 budget reduction targets for school districts would remain voluntary, but
that the General Fund transfer would be permanently reduced by that amount
(although it will increase by an inflationary figure in future years).
The Education Fund will now be responsible for paying for
the educational costs of operating the Community High School of Vermont (the
corrections’ system school). This has a
cost of $4.3M in FY 2012. In recent
years, this cost was shifted onto the Education Fund using language that
created one-year arrangements. Language
in H.441 portends a permanent shift.
The Student Assistance Program (SAP), a state supported
program that provides funding for drug and alcohol counselors in schools, will
be funded at a 50 percent level in FY 2012 as compared to its FY 2011 funding.
In FY 2013, the Department of Health will award funds for the program on a
competitive basis. The criteria for
awarding of grants in FY 2013 will be based on individual SAP programs meeting their
stated goals, funding matches from the local district, and need as identified
in the Department of Health’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT045.pdf
The Legislature approved H.436, a miscellaneous bill
concerning revenues and taxes in Vermont.
The bill includes many provisions unrelated to school district
operation, and handful of provisions that pertain to education funding. The latter are detailed as follows.
- Statewide education
property tax rates will be $1.36 for nonresidential property and $0.87 for
homestead property in FY 2012. The
base education amount will remain $8,544 in FY 2012.
- A report due on July 15,
2011 from the Department of Taxes concerning the feasibility of the state
assuming the duties of collecting education property taxes has been
amended. It now must include a
provision studying the feasibility of applying the Common Level of
Appraisal (CLA) “separately and independently” from the tax rate. In other words, the Legislature is
interested in examining how the CLA could be applied to education property
tax rates without having the perceived effect of modifying those rates;
the study is not intended to
propose modifying or eliminating the CLA itself.
- A previously approved
plan to convert the Department of Taxes to a department of revenue has
been repealed.
- A current law requirement
that the State Board of Education report to the Legislature at least every
five years on the outcome of the Board’s evaluation of the “equalizing
effects of Vermont’s education finance system and school quality
standards” has been repealed.
The excess spending penalty is a tax surcharge applied to
taxpayers with homestead property located in school districts that have
education spending per pupil in excess of 125 percent of the prior year’s statewide
average. The law requires the Department
of Education to exclude several categories of school spending when it
calculates a district’s spending per pupil for purposes of applying the
penalty. H.436 makes both technical and
substantive changes to these spending exemptions.
The technical change is that the exemptions have been
consolidated to one place in the law.
Previously, the exemptions were found in both Title 16 and Title
32. Now, all exemptions will be listed
in 16 V.S.A. § 4001(6)(B).
The substantive changes concern districts that tuition all students
and have students move into the district after the Average Daily Membership
census period has concluded. Number (vi) and (vii) exempt districts that tuition all students from triggering the excess
spending penalty as a result of these new tuition costs. Number (vi) had previously been applicable to
any district that paid tuition to public schools for one or more grades but not
necessarily all grades; it is now applicable to tuition costs to public schools or approved independent schools but it is restricted to districts
that tuition all students. Exemption (vii) is entirely new.
For reference, the excess spending exemptions are:
- Approved capital
construction spending for which the district will not receive state aid;
- Approved capital
construction spending for which the district will receive state aid;
- Spending that is
deposited into a reserve fund to pay future approved capital construction
costs and the portion of tuition payments to an independent school
designated as the public high school for a district that will be used for
approved capital construction costs;
- Spending attributable to
the cost of planning a merger of a school with an average grade size of 20
or fewer students;
- Spending attributable to
a district’s share of special education costs in excess of $50,000 for any
one student;
- A budget deficit in a
district that pays tuition for all students to public or approved
independent schools in any year in which the budget deficit is solely
attributable to tuition costs for students who moved into the district
after the budget for the year creating the deficit was approved;
- For a district that pays
tuition for all of its resident students and has students move into the
district after the Average Daily Membership census period has ended, the
number of students who exceed the district’s most recent average daily
membership multiplied by the district’s average rate of tuition paid in
that year.
H.436 directs the Legislature’s fiscal office, with
assistance from the Legislature’s legal office, the Department of Taxes, and
the Department of Education, to develop a proposal for a consultant to evaluate
the “outcomes” of Act 60 and Act 68. The
proposal must be approved by Legislative leaders. H.436 also eliminates a similar study that
the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission had been scheduled to undertake in lieu of this
study.
The evaluation of Acts 60 and 68 will include a review of
existing studies on the topic, data collected by the Departments of Education
and Taxes, and a review of education finance systems in “comparable states with
an emphasis on states in New England and states committed to equity.” The evaluation will include comparisons
between communities within Vermont and between states on the following factors:
equity (including opportunity for students, access to resources, and equal
treatment of taxpayers); education quality (including a review of Vermont’s
statutory outcome measures of performance and other state and national
measures); comparative costs (including spending growth, particular spending
areas, with an understanding that Act 60 and Act 68 envisioned some increase in
spending in poorer communities); funding reliance (types of tax and revenues to
fund education); demographic issues; economic impacts that the education funding system has had on state and
local economies; relationships between per pupil spending and total spending;
and, the extent to which spending is correlated to community income
wealth.
The consultant will be directed to include public
participation in the study and to submit a report to the Governor and
Legislature by January 18, 2012. The
fiscal office has been authorized to spend $210,000 on the study, and more if
necessary.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT059.pdf
The Legislature approved H.73, a bill that amends Vermont’s
public records act. The bill includes
the following provisions affecting school districts:
- If a public agency
believes that a requested record is not a public document, it now has
three business days to state in writing to the requester why the record is
withheld, including the statutory basis for denial and a “brief statement
of the reasons and supporting facts for denial.” As is current law, the requester can
appeal the decision to the head of the public agency.
- H.73 requires public
agencies to pay legal fees for any complainant who substantially prevails
in taking the agency to court to force the release of public documents
unless the agency concedes that the records are public and releases them
prior to any court appearance. In
that case, the courts “may” award legal fees to the prevailing party.
- Public agencies are
prohibited from denying inspection of a public record in its entirety on
the basis that some content is exempt from inspection. The agency is directed to redact the
exempt content and produce the record with an explanation of the basis for
the redaction.
- If the record requester
has a disability that requires accommodation to gain equal access to the
public record sought, the public agency is directed to work with the
requester to accommodate his or her disability regarding inspection of the
requested record.
- The Secretary of State is
directed to provide advice on the requirements of the public records law
to both public agencies and members of the public.
- The Secretary of State is
directed to survey local municipalities on the volume of public records
requests and other related matters in preparation for an annual report the
Secretary will make to the Legislature.
There are two noteworthy provisions that the legislature
chose not to include in the final
version of H.73, each of which was in an earlier draft that we reported on
previously.
- Legislators chose not to
increase the period of time after which a public agency may charge the
requester of a public record for staff time to produce the record. The period remains 30 minutes of free
staff time; earlier drafts of the bill had increased that period to two
hours.
- Legislators also deleted
a provision from an earlier draft that would have required each
municipality to appoint a public records officer. The records officer would have been required
to participate in annual trainings on records.
H.73 will take effect on July 1, 2011. The bill also creates a study committee of
legislators who will be charged with examining the public records law. The committees’ duties include evaluating current
exemptions to the public records law, determining whether the term “personal
documents” needs additional clarification, making recommendations on to what
extent municipalities should be able to charge for record copying and
inspection, and making a recommendation as to whether municipalities should be
required to appoint a public records officer.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT043.pdf
H.38 is a bill that requires school districts to accommodate
children of active duty military personnel according to the provisions of the
legislation. H.38 also requires Vermont
to participate an interstate compact on educational opportunity for children of
military families. The interstate
compact includes an interstate commission that Vermont will join.
The interstate compact was developed by the Department of
Defense and the Council of State Governments. Each state that enters the compact (by
approving the bill in its state legislature) agrees to accommodate active duty
military personnel with regard to the educational services provided to their
children when personnel are relocated or deployed. Those accommodations include swiftly
enrolling children in school and retrieving their educational records,
enrolling children in grade levels and courses comparable to their sending
district, providing comparable special services if applicable, and emphasizing flexible
pathways to on-time graduation.
H.38 has the following provisions regarding on-time
graduation. School district officials
are directed to waive specific course requirements for graduation if similar
coursework has been satisfactorily completed in another district, including
exit exams. If the waiver is not granted
but the student has completed all the requirements to graduate from his or her
sending school, the receiving school must provide alternative means of
acquiring the required coursework so that the student can graduate on time. If a student transfers at the beginning of or
during his or her senior year and the student appears ineligible to graduate
from the receiving school after alternative pathways have been considered, the
receiving school must acquire receipt of a diploma from the sending school,
assuming the student is qualified to graduate from that district.
States that enter the compact also agree to abide by
administrative rules promulgated by an interstate commission that was created
to govern compact-related rules and disputes among participating states. Vermont and all other participating states
will have one vote in the commission’s rulemaking process. At this time, the commission has not
promulgated any rules outside the scope of the legislation described above.
2011 was the first year of the legislative biennium so bills
that were not approved this year are not necessarily “dead” or otherwise
eliminated from the legislative process (although they might be). When the General Assembly reconvenes in
January, the following legislation remains in one committee or another and may
be taken up for more consideration.
Nevertheless, what follows is a list of notable bills that we reported
on in prior Education Legislative Reports
that did not make it all the way through the process.
“Green” Cleaning (S.92)
This bill would require the use of environmentally
preferable cleaning products to be used in schools when available. The Senate and House each passed a version of
this bill with some discrepancies. A
consensus on the bill’s language did not emerge this year, although it was
under active consideration in the last week of the session. It appears that legislators will continue to
work on the bill next year.
Gubernatorial Appointment of a
Secretary of Education, Changes to the Composition of the State Board of
Education (H.440)
The House Education Committee approved a version of H.440
that, if it was enacted, would have left important questions regarding the role
of the Secretary and the State Board of Education to the 2012 session of the
General Assembly. The House Committee on
Government Operations took testimony on the bill but did not reach a consensus
as to whether to approve or reject the bill.
The two committees worked collaboratively on several different
variations of the bill in the waning weeks of the session; some versions had
the approval of one or more of our Associations, others did not. Ultimately, we supported the decision of the
Legislature to table the issue until next year.
The bill was recommitted to the House Education Committee; the Committee
is likely to continue to work on the bill next year.
Mandatory 30-Minute Breaks for Each
Six Hours Worked (H.41)
This bill, which was approved by the House after
considerable debate on the floor, was sent to the Senate Committee on Economic
Development, Housing, and General Affairs where it remains. It is unclear whether the Senate will take up
the bill next year.
Open Meetings (S.67)
Discrepancies
between the House and Senate versions of this bill that would make amendments
to Vermont’s open meeting law were not resolved in the final days of the
session. It is likely that the General
Assembly will continue to work on this bill when the session resumes next
year. The bill has been recommitted to
the House Committee on Government Operations.
Organizing Childcare Providers (H.97)
This bill was approved by the House but not in time to meet
“crossover.” Consequently, it was sent
to the Senate Committee on Rules. As
reported by media outlets, it appears that some Senators have concerns with the
bill; whether the Senate will take up the bill next year is difficult to
predict.
12-Month Pay for School Year
Employees; Summer Unemployment Compensation for School Year Employees (H.238 & S.95)
See
the article on page 6 of this Report for
information on these bills.
Two-vote Repeal (H.299)
This
bill was approved by the House but it did not receive substantive hearings in
the Senate (it currently resides in the Senate Education Committee). Some Senators expressed concern with the
fiscal implications in the bill. H.299
has public support from the Governor, the Vt-NEA, and our Associations. It is too early to say whether the Senate
will take up the bill next year.
Small Schools Grants Report (No bill)
The Department of Education fulfilled a directive of the
2010 Legislature by completing a report on Small Schools Grants. Currently, any school district that has fewer
students than a given standard (100 students or 20 students per grade) is
eligible for a Small Schools Grant (there is also a smaller financial stability
grant for districts with rapidly declining enrollment). Section 21 of Act 153 of 2010 directed the
Department of Education to determine a methodology for determining which small
schools were “geographically isolated” and to suggest a plan for gradual
withdrawal of aid for districts not deemed isolated. The Department completed its report and
presented it to a joint hearing of the Senate and House Committees on Education
in the spring.
Following the presentation of the report, there were no
additional hearings on the subject and no legislation approved in 2011 affected
the Small Schools Grants or asked for additional study.
For reference, here is a link to the Department’s report: http://education.vermont.gov/new/pdfdoc/laws/legislative_reports/10/EDU-Report_on_Act_153_of_2009_Section_21.pdf
END
