VSBA/VSA/VPA LEGISLATIVE REPORT
March 17, 2008
Legislature Considers Changes to Education
Laws in Several Areas
Friday, March 14 was “cross-over”
day at the State House, meaning that (with exceptions always possible) beginning
the following week, only bills that have passed out of at least one committee
can be considered by the General Assembly.
This requirement creates a flurry of activity leading up to cross-over,
as legislators and committees work to meet the deadline. This year, several potentially major changes
to education law and policy were approved by either the House or Senate
Education Committee prior to cross-over. Here is a status-review of some of the
potentially significant bills still being considered as of the end of the day
on March 14th.
House Repeals Two Vote Requirement; Favors Strengthened
Excess Spending Threshold
When the Miscellaneous Education
Amendments bill (H.864), developed by the House Education Committee, came up
for a vote on the House floor on February 28, an amendment was introduced to
repeal the “two-vote” requirement enacted last year as part of Act 82. A second amendment was introduced to support
the repeal but also to lower the excess spending threshold from 125% to 123% in
FY10 and FY11, and to 120% for FY12 and beyond. The House easily passed the second amendment
and the repeal was approved by the House on a vote of 99 to 38.
The House acted to repeal the
“two-vote” requirement after hearing from school board members, school
officials and others about how the requirement would be misleading to voters
and disrespectful towards the work of school boards, among other concerns.
Given a strict choice between the excess spending threshold and the “two-vote”
requirement, the former is a more equitable, predictable and preferable device
for cost containment. Full repeal of
“two-vote” has a long road to travel.
The Governor has not disguised his displeasure, calling the House action
to undo last year’s law “shameful,” and has promised to veto the bill should it
get to his desk. The House vote was
strong enough to make override of a veto by that body at least possible.
H.864 is now in the Senate. Last year, the “two-vote” scheme had
significant support in the Senate, where it passed with 23 Senators supporting
it, four opposing, and three absent.
Nevertheless, at least some Senators have been listening to their
constituents and might yet be persuaded to consider an alternative to the Act 82
two-vote provision. Within a few weeks,
we should know a great deal more about the Senate’s willingness to re-think the
rhetoric that surrounded Act 82 from the outset.
Senate
Committee Approves Dramatic Overhaul of State-Level Education System
Frustrated by what they describe
as a “lack of leadership and accountability,” the Senate Education Committee,
by a 3-1-1 vote, has proposed sweeping and dramatic changes to the state-level
education governance structure in Vermont.
Currently, the Governor appoints
members to the State Board of Education for six-year terms, and the State Board
is charged with the responsibility of hiring the Commissioner. A bill passed
out of the Senate committee on March 14th, would eliminate the State
Board altogether, “elevate” the Department of Education to a cabinet-level
agency, and empower the Governor to appoint a Secretary of Education. The Secretary would be a member of the
Governor’s cabinet and be responsible for all the duties of the former State
Board and Commissioner.
The VSBA has a long-standing Resolution
supporting the current method of State Board and Commissioner appointment. The
Resolution is based on recognition that education is a unique governmental
activity. Local and state governments
share responsibility for the delivery of educational services. The State Board of Education was created in
the early 20th century to allow the state to play its role without
being subjected to partisan political influences. Moving toward the Senate Committee’s model
would almost certainly politicize education at a time when partisanship is a
driving force in Montpelier.
Nevertheless, there is a strong contingent of policy makers who reject
this logic. Some legislators question the utility of the State Board, claiming
that it is “out of touch with reality,” others are convinced that a direct
appointment will curb education costs and others believe that the Commissioner
and State Board are removed from direct accountability to voters.
There is a real possibility that
this change will be enacted this year.
The Senate Committee considered passing legislation that would have
required a study of various educational leadership models before making this
move, but ultimately decided to stick with the initial bill. The Governor is said to be strongly in favor
of direct appointment. The
reorganization bill will next be considered by the full Senate.
Statewide or Regional Calendars?
Another provision of the
miscellaneous bill discussed above (see “House Repeals “Two-vote” Requirement)
would repeal the statewide calendar mandate enacted last year in favor of
strengthening the regional calendar system that has been in place for many
years. H.864 would require technical
center directors and superintendents within a technical service region to agree
to a uniform calendar prior April 1st each year. The bill would give the Commissioner of
Education authority to enforce regional calendars by withholding state
aid. This amounts to a clarification of
the existing regional calendar process.
It requires superintendents and tech center directors to agree on a
calendar for each region, and makes clearer that, once agreed upon by the administrators, school boards do not have the authority to
make changes.
On the afternoon of cross-over Friday,
the Senate Education Committee approved a regional calendar stand-alone bill
that incorporates the provisions in H.864, but also requires that any countable
school day must have a majority of students in each grade from 1 to 12 present
for at least five and one-half hours. In
so doing, the Senate Committee has expressed its agreement to a return to the
regional calendar system and at the same time kept alive its belief that the
General Assembly should mandate hours of attendance. If the Senate approves the bill passed out by
its Education Committee, the calendar issue will be positioned for negotiations
between the House and the Senate.
Allergy & Asthma Medication
The House Education Committee has
passed H.748, a bill that would authorize students to carry and administer
their own life-saving medications under certain conditions. Annually, parents must provide the school
with written authorization, and a written order from the child’s physician that
approves and authorizes the student to self-medicate. Only “life-saving” allergy and asthma
medicines are covered by this bill. The
bill does not include a definition of “life-saving,” leaving that determination
up to each child’s physician. School
nurses would be required to cooperate with the parents of affected children to
develop plan of actions when possession and/or self-administration of
medication by students is necessary. The
parent would be required to release, in writing, the school from liability from
any injuries resulting from the self-medication, except in the case of gross
negligence or intentional misconduct on the part of a school employee. H.748 will now be considered by the full
House of Representatives.
High School Completion
The Senate Education committee has
passed a bill (S.348) that would increase the age of compulsory school
attendance from 16 to 18. Under S.348, a
“Personal Education Plan” would be developed by the school’s educational
support team for any student deemed at any age to be at risk of dropping out
sometime in the future. The school would
be then be required to offer an expanded network of
alternative education programs and choices to the student. The bill also contains a mandatory process
for students between the age of 16 and 18 to complete before being allowed to
leave school prior to graduation. The
process includes requests for “waivers” from administrators and, in some cases,
school boards. Leaving school without a
waiver would constitute truancy.
The Senate bill contains no
funding to support its many process and programmatic requirements. As boards struggle to stay below the excess
spending threshold, and away from the “two-vote” requirement, programs like
these with new, mandated costs increase the likelihood that the budget process
will include more “Hobson’s” choices, requiring taking from one worthy or
necessary function and giving to another.
As of March 14th, S.348 was scheduled for review by the
Senate Appropriations Committee, which is charged with identifying its cost
implications.
Supervisory Union Study
After consideration of S.175, a
bill introduced last year that would require voter approval of supervisory
union budgets, the Senate Education Committee has approved a “strike-all”
amendment to the bill that would initiate a study of the supervisory union
structure in general and require a report to legislature at the beginning of
the next biennium. The study would be
lead by the Commissioner of Education and would have the following mandatory
components.
1)
Whether the services provided by supervisory
unions in areas including special education, compensatory education,
centralized purchasing, construction management, budgeting and financial
management, teacher negotiations and transportation should be mandatory
functions of all supervisory unions or should be statutorily assigned to member
school districts;
2)
Whether any other duties assigned to
supervisory unions should be clarified or reassigned;
3)
Whether supervisory union boards should be
given any duties not currently assigned to them;
4)
Whether representation on supervisory union
boards should be more closely aligned with one person one vote principles;
5)
Whether supervisory unions should be
designated as municipal entities with separate electorates;
6)
Whether supervisory union budgets should
require approval of member school district boards or the electorate of member
districts; and
7)
Whether supervisory unions should be empowered
to borrow money.
The bill approved by the Committee
would require that the VSBA, VSA and VPA be among the members of the study
committee created by the bill.
Removal of Tuition Costs From
Penalty Calculations
The Senate Education Committee
also approved a strike-all amendment to S.15 on the day of the cross over
deadline. S.15 is a bill that would
remove tuition costs from the calculations used to determine whether districts
are subject to the excess spending penalty.
The Committee’s version would take tuition out of the calculations
related to the “two-vote” penalty as well as the excess spending
threshold.
The Committee had a brief
discussion about removing other “uncontrollable” costs from these calculations,
but not to expand the bill’s coverage beyond tuition, which is arguably the “most
uncontrollable” of cost-drivers.
Streamlining, Mandates and Cost-Saving Incentives
The House Education Committee
approved H.879, a bill that addresses several potential cost-saving and
efficiency measures, prior to the cross-over deadline. The major parts of H.879 are the following.
1)
Streamlining the Union School District
Formation Process. H.879 would amend
sections of 16 V.S.A. §701 and 706 to clarify and simplify some of the
processes required to form union and unified school districts. Among the
provisions are ones that would allow school boards to undertake union district
formation studies in certain cases without prior voter approval, would clarify
the process required to withdraw from a union or unified union school district
and would clarify the steps necessary to transition to a newly formed union or
unified union school district. While
H.879’s streamlining provisions are not apt to result, in and of themselves, in
the immediate formation of more union districts, they will make the process
more approachable for school districts interested in exploring union formation
options.
2)
Mandated Reporting Repeals and Act 51 Training
Revisions. H.879 marks nine current
requirements for reports from school districts or the Department of Education
for repeal. Among the reports that would be eliminated under H.879 are: school
district annual reports to the Commissioner on alcohol and drug abuse;
superintendents’ annual reports on vision and hearing tests; annual reports
from districts on the status of education support services and the DOE’s annual
report of regional high school choice.
The bill would also require that the Act 51 in-service training programs
on alcohol and drug abuse prevention provided by or through the DOE include at
least on on-line program, and would authorize superintendents to “…determine
the content, duration and frequency of training on issues of alcohol and drug
abuse for the districts in his or her supervisory union.”
3)
Special Education Audits and Reimbursements.
H.879 also addresses special education audits performed by the Department of
Education by requiring the Commissioner to “…make recommendations to improve
the timeliness and efficiency of the audit process,” and lists specific topics
for review. The Commissioner is also
required under H.879 to make recommendations to “…amend special education
funding provisions…in order to streamline the process by which districts
document costs and submit claims for reimbursements. Finally, the bill would suspend DOE special
education audits in connection with the 2007-2008 school year, provided that
superintendents certify that appropriate documentation of expenditures are on
file and that time studies have been conducted and are on file for all staff
time for which reimbursement is sought.
4)
Education Incentive Fund. Considered with
H.879, but not included in the version approved by the Committee is a section
that would establish an incentive fund, managed by the State Treasurer, the
Secretary of Administration and the Commissioner of Education. The fund would be used for “…projects in
which two or more entities share or merge services, equipment, or facilities
by, for example, entering into an arrangement for whole-grade sharing,
centralized purchasing, coordinated provision of special education services, or
other collaborative initiatives.”
Funding would also be available for projects that reduce energy
consumption. The Committee decided not
to include this in H.879, but rather to refer it to discussions with the House
Appropriations Committee in order to determine the feasibility of funding the
proposal.
1)
Before hiring an architect or engineer the
school board must solicit a statement of qualifications from at least three
persons that provide architectural or engineering services.
2)
The school board must also adopt written
criteria for the selection of semifinalists and finalists from among the
persons submitting the statement of qualifications. The statement of qualifications must include;
prior similar experience; past performance on public and private projects;
willingness to meet time and budget requirements; capacity to meet
requirements; and any other criteria deemed relevant by the school board.
3)
Based on the qualifications presented, the
school board must select the three most qualified applicants and rank them in
priority order. The board must send
written notification of the selection and the order of preference to all
persons and firms that responded to the invitation to submit qualifications.
4)
The School Board must negotiate a contract
with the most qualified person at a level of compensation that is “fair and
reasonable.” If a satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated with the most
highly qualified person, then the school board may terminate negotiations and
commence negotiations with the next most qualified person.
The requirements of S. 211 do not
apply to projects initiated in any fiscal year in which state aid for school
construction is suspended. A school
board may retain an architect or engineer or both for a period not to exceed
three years without adhering to the aforementioned process if the total project
costs do not exceed $500,000. S. 211
will be considered by the full Senate during the upcoming week and will be sent
to the House for consideration if it is approved by the Senate.
VSA and VSBA opposed S. 211 in the
Senate Education Committee as we believe that it imposes unnecessary process requirements
on school boards.
House Education Approves Helpful Fix to Pre-Kindergarten
Issue
The House Education Committee has
given its approval to a fix that will prove helpful in the implementation of
The bill is helpful because
provisions of last year’s Pre-kindergarten Education Law (Act 62) and the
associated regulations require that programs operated by schools have either
STARS (Step Ahead Recognition System) certification or NAEYC (National
Association for the Education of Young Children) accreditation. The STARS
approval process, which is administered through Department for Children and
Family Services is not currently designed for
efficient application by schools. Given
the short time line to
The House- passed provision also
specifies that the STARS program will be subject to rulemaking undertaken by
the Departments of Education and Children and Family Services with final
adoption of rules by Children and Family Services prior to
The bill will be considered by the
full House in the near future.