The 2008 legislative
session was, in part, more notable for the issues that were not resolved than
the issues that were. State level
governance changes, including gubernatorial appointment of the Commissioner of
Education, were extensively discussed in both the House and Senate. The Senate approved a gubernatorial
appointment bill but the House Education Committee, after two weeks of hearings
and discussion, decided not to make changes.
Separately, the House voted to repeal the two-vote requirement that the
legislature passed last year, but Senators worked staunchly to avoid any vote on
the matter, preferring to let the House repeal expire
with the biennium.
These examples
demonstrated how the two chambers were largely unable to agree on priorities
for state level education policy.
Perhaps the best evidence of this phenomenon was school calendars; each
chamber passed a bill that would have repealed last year’s statewide calendar
bill, but no consensus – and no law – emerged from the two similar bills. The result is uncertainty as to how future
school calendars will be developed.
Much of the significant
legislation that was approved by the General Assembly was an extension of work
begun in 2007, including a prekindergarten bill and a bill on financing teen
parent education. Some new mandatory
procedures for schools were enacted in the self-administering medication, animal
dissection, and nursing mothers bills.
School officials and
taxpayers did receive some good news from Montpelier this year. Districts that do not operate schools will no
longer be required to pay an excess spending penalty for tuition costs they had
little capacity to control. It will now
be easier for school districts to explore the benefits and drawbacks of union
school district formation. The state
will begin awarding energy analysis grants to districts with an eye towards
reducing fuel costs.
What follows is a summary
of education legislation that passed in 2008 with a focus on the expected
effects for school districts and officials.
As school districts and state
agencies worked to understand and implement Act
62 of 2007, the prekindergarten bill from last year, it became clear that
several clarifications and updates were necessary. As the 2008 session evolved, H.884 became the
vehicle to apply these changes. Act 62
required prekindergarten programs to receive either NAEYC accreditation or at
least three-star approval in the Department of Children and Families’ “STARS”
system as a prerequisite for counting pre-k students in a school district’s
average daily membership. This year, it
was determined that the NAEYC accreditation process was prohibitively expensive
for many districts, and the STARS program is applicable primarily to private
programs and is not currently appropriate
for public school programs.
Therefore, H.884 directs the Department of Children and Families (DCF)
and the Department of Education (DOE) to jointly develop and approve rules for
STARS standards applicable to both public and private prekindergarten
settings. DCF will adopt the approved
rules no later than April 1, 2009, to be effective for the 2009-2010 school year.
For the 2008-09 school year only, H.884 also grants
“presumptive eligibility at a three star level” for all public and private programs
that are in “good regulatory standing” with DCF.
In addition, H.884 clarifies
that public and private prekindergarten programs will have one full year from
the effective date of the rules required by Section
3 of Act 62, which the State Board is expected to approve at its May
meeting, to achieve full compliance regarding provisions in the rules related
to conducting child development assessments and governing the manner in which
school districts and private providers establish and negotiate contract
payments.
Finally, H.884 updates and
clarifies the number of prekindergarten students a district may count in its
average daily membership (ADM). These limits
would apply to both public school programs and private programs operated on
behalf of districts. The ADM cap is
designed to approximate the larger of 10 children or
the number of resident four year-olds.
Each year, the DOE will notify districts of their most advantageous cap
number.
The “grandfather” clause in
Act 62, which will remain applicable, allows districts to count in their ADM as
many prekindergarten students as they previously counted in any of the
following three school years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07. School districts can continue to count all
students receiving essential early education (EEE) services in their ADM as
well as the following.
ADM Limits (district may choose largest of the following
four options):
1)
10 children
2)
One + the average annual
increase/decrease in the district’s 1st grade ADM for the past five
years * the district’s most immediate first grade ADM
3)
The total number of resident
prekindergarten students eligible to enter kindergarten the following
year. (For a district to use this
number, it must notify the DOE of its intention to do so, because this
information is not readily available at the Department.)
4)
One-fifth of the district’s
ADM for grades 1-5 in the prior year
Paying the costs of
educational services at teen parent programs was an issue for the third
consecutive legislative year and, once again, the assembly has legislated a temporary funding mechanism to last for one
year. For the 2008-09 school year, districts will be required to pay 83% of
the prior year’s statewide average net cost per pupil (minus debt service) to
teen parent education programs for each student who attends, pro rated for the
length of stay.
This will increase the
amount of per pupil education funding available to teen parent education
programs when compared with fiscal year 2008 by approximately 40% (this year,
districts were required to pay 83% of the base education payment). In 2007, 171 students enrolled in one of 10
recognized teen parent programs in Vermont.
These students were not all year-round enrollees; the full time
equivalency enrollment for 2007 was 108.
Some of these students were older than age 19.
In fiscal year 2007,
statewide average net cost per pupil minus debt service for high school
students was $10,286; if the new law had been in place this year, school
districts would have been required to pay 83% of this amount ($8,537) for each
pupil attending a teen parent program for a full year.
Disputes related to TPEP
enrollment are to be resolved by the Commissioner of Education, whose decision
will be final.
The TPEP bill speaks
briefly to the quality of educational programming expected of the teen parent
programs. It says, “As determined by the
[enrolling school], the pupil must be taking classes … that are the substantial
equivalent of courses required … to obtain a high school diploma.” This bill also specifies that, “it is the
intent of the general assembly that, after June 30, 2010, any education funds
paid to teen parent education programs … shall be available only to those
programs that the state board of education has determined to be ‘approved
education programs’ under Title 16.”
This requirement may require additional legislation because ‘approved
education program’ is not defined in Title 16, and the State Board is in the absence of authorization to regulate
programs without specific statutory authority.
Currently law allows
pregnant or post-partum pupils to attend any school district or educational
program in Vermont. In this event, the
enrolling district or program may count the student in its state-placed average
daily membership.
This section of H.891 has
an automatic repeal date of July 1, 2009.
During the course of the legislative session, the education committees
considered several different concepts for paying these costs and the final
arrangement was not determined until late in the session. For all of these reasons, we expect the
legislature will revisit this issue in the next biennium.
The legislature has
approved a section of H.891 that makes the state responsible for paying the
student’s share of reduced price school breakfast costs (approximately 30¢ per
breakfast), when that student is eligible for federally funded reduced price
breakfasts. Section 6.028 of the
appropriations bill amends 16 VSA § 1264 to state that this cost is now a state
responsibility, and section 6.027 directs the commissioner of education to
reimburse school districts for these expenses quarterly.
We presume the Department of Education will soon be
notifying school districts regarding procedures necessary to implement this
subsidy.
The legislature
appropriated $170,000 from the general fund to cover the estimated cost of this
subsidy.
H.748 is a bill that
allows students with life threatening allergies or illnesses to carry
medications at school. The bill requires
collaboration between school officials, parents, and physicians, and allows
qualified students to carry their medications anywhere in school and to all
school functions.
In order for his or her
child to be granted this responsibility, a parent will be required to submit a
detailed physician’s authorization. The
authorization must give the names and dosages of all medications, as well as
certify that the child is knowledgeable and capable of administering the
medicine. The parent will then work with
the school nurse to develop a plan of action for responding to the child’s life
threatening condition.
The parent will also be
required to sign a statement releasing the school and school employees from
liability concerning the child’s medicine, except when the conduct of the
school or school employee would constitute gross negligence, recklessness, or
intentional misconduct.
This bill will require
employers to accommodate nursing mothers for up to three years after
childbirth. Specifically, an employer
must provide reasonable time throughout the day to express breast milk for her
nursing child. The employer must make
“reasonable accommodation to provide an appropriate private space that is not a
bathroom stall.”
The bill does exempt
employers from these provisions if providing time or an appropriate space
would, “substantially disrupt the employer’s operations.” The employer will have sole description as to
whether the employee is compensated for her time.
· The moratorium on state aid for school construction is
extended for at least one more year.
· If a school
district declares its intent to pay for a school construction project without
state aid, the district will be allowed to submit the project to the department
of education for approval. If the Commissioner approves the project, the
district may deduct the portion of education spending that is approved from the
calculation of excess spending. Note
that this approval process does not mean that if the moratorium is lifted, the
project will be eligible for construction aid.
In order to receive state aid, a separate approval decision will be
required after the moratorium is lifted.
· To help districts accommodate the school construction
moratorium, the state has suspended enforcement of a particular tax penalty,
pursuant to 24 VSA § 2804(b). Districts
that deposit money in a construction reserve fund must spend the money within
five years or face a tax penalty. Until
the school construction moratorium is repealed, the state will not punish
districts for holding money in a construction reserve fund indefinitely.
S.365 establishes a grant
program to be developed and administered by the Department of Education. Grants of up to $10,000 will be awarded to
pay 100% of the cost of a comprehensive energy engineering analysis of school
buildings by qualified engineers. The
criteria for awarding grants will be developed by the Commissioner of
Education, and the program was appropriated $50,000 to begin pilot projects
this year.
The Vermont Superintendents
Association school energy management director, Norm Etkind,
has been asked to help the Department of Education establish the process to be
used for schools to utilize this State grant program along with the
requirements of the engineering analysis to be performed.
· $10,000,000 for previously approved school
construction aid
· $6750 for roof repairs at the Walden school
· $50,000 for repairs at the Austine School
· When seeking state board approval for construction
projects, if the total estimated cost of the proposed project is less than
$50,000, no performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit shall be required.
This bill expands the list of professionals who are
required to report suspected child abuse or neglect, pursuant to 33 VSA § 4914. School
teachers and administrators are among the many professionals that are currently
required to report abuse or neglect.
H.635 expands the list of mandatory reporters to include, “any other
individual who is regularly employed by a school district, or who is contracted
and paid by a school district to provide student services for five or more
hours per week during the school year.”
33 VSA § 4913 states,
“[Any required child abuse or neglect reporter] who has reasonable cause to
believe that any child who has been abused or neglected shall report or cause a
report to be made in accordance with the provisions of section 4914 of this
title within 24 hours.” The maximum
penalty for violating this provision is a $500 fine.
An abused or neglected
child is defined as, “a child whose physical health, psychological growth and
development or welfare is harmed or is at substantial risk of harm by the acts
or omissions of his or her parent or other person responsible for the child’s
welfare. An ‘abused or neglected child’
also means a child who is sexually abused or at substantial risk of sexual
abuse by any person.”
As part of the catchall
education bill, H.711, the legislature established a right on the part of
students to be excused from participating in or observing animal dissection as
a part of a course of study. The bill
requires all school districts to adopt and implement policies governing
dissection, including the procedure by which a student may be excused. The policies must also specify how the school
will notify students and parents in advance of dissection lessons, and detail
alternative education methods through which a student can learn and be assessed
on the course material. Districts must develop dissection
procedures by August 15th and adopt those procedures as policy by
November 1st of this year.
The VSBA is preparing a
model policy on animal dissection for distribution this summer.
·
Section 38 of H.711
exempts school districts that do not operate schools for any grades K-12
(“tuitioning towns”) from the calculation of excess spending, and therefore the
excess spending penalty.
·
Section 6.024 of
the appropriations bill increases the maximum amount of Medicaid reimbursement
funds that the Agency of Human Services and the Department of Education would
have available, pursuant to 16 VSA § 2959a(f).
The maximum is raised from 20% to 30% of all reimbursements (i.e.
approximately $2 million in additional money available). Initially, this increase will be to allow
reimbursement funds to flow to special education services provided by the
Community High School of Vermont (See section 2.243 of the appropriations
bill). In prior years, general fund
dollars paid for these services. We expect the net effect to be an increase in
education property taxes of $500,000 in fiscal year 2009, and there is
potential for additional cost shifts in the future.
·
Section 6.004.1
of the appropriations bill adjusts state funding for adult service coordinators
in technical centers. Previously, the
State reimbursed technical centers for 50% of the actual salary and benefits
costs for this position; the new language says the state shall pay up to 50% of the statewide average salary and benefits costs for the adult service
coordinators statewide. If fully funded,
this provision should provide additional funding to technical centers with
relatively lower salary costs. The bill
also changes the title of “Adult Service Coordinator” to “Assistant Director
for Adult Education.”
·
S.354 is a bill
that addresses new IRS regulations pertaining to section 403(b) deferred
compensation plans. S.354 directs the
state teacher’s retirement board to create an investment program that will be
available to school districts and will satisfy the new IRS regulations. The investment program will be optional for
school districts, but presumably will ease districts’ administrative
obligations in the new regulatory environment.
·
Education property tax rates for fiscal year 2009 will
be 87¢ for homestead property and $1.36 for non-residential property. These rates
are the same as they were in fiscal year 2008.
·
Section 18 of H.711
directs the Department of Education not to perform any special education
reimbursement audits regarding claims from the current school year (2007-08). As described
in the “Legislative Studies” section of this report, the Department will also
be instructed to study the special education reimbursement audit process and
make efficiency recommendations.
·
S.45 allows students who are of voting age to attend a
town meeting without being penalized or reported as truant.
·
Section 8 of H.711
addresses the drug and alcohol abuse training that is required of Vermont
educators pursuant to 16 VSA § 909(b).
Section 8 specifies that at least one of the training programs offered
by the Department of Education must be a computer-based training. Also, superintendents will, “determine the
content, duration, and frequency of training…” in their supervisory unions.
·
H.711
also contains several provisions related to union school district formation and
dissolution. The language is intended to
clarify and streamline the union school district formation process, and to
provide a clearer process to dissolve or reconfigure existing union
schools. One of the most significant changes allows for the formation of a union
school district planning committee without a vote of the electorate, if the
total budget for the committee is less than $25,000.
·
Section 5.304.1 of
the appropriations bill (H.891) allows Guildhall to join a group of five other
Vermont school districts that have the option of tuitioning elementary students
to New Hampshire public schools.
·
Section 7 of H.711
repeals some of the public reporting requirements that were implemented as part
of the school quality standards pursuant to 16 VSA § 165(a) (2). Districts would
no longer be asked to report on the health and well being of children in the
district, or early reading activities, or early education opportunities, or
community support available, or participation among secondary students in
technical education and postsecondary activities.
·
Section 6 of H.711
repeals certain reports now made annually or biannually to the legislature on
education related topics. Section 6
lists 16 specific reports and repeals the provisions of law that require those
reports to be presented regularly in the State House.
Section 18 of H.711
directs the Commissioner of Education, in consultation with the Vermont
Superintendents Association, the Vermont Council on Special Education
Administrators and the Vermont Association for School Business Officials, to
examine the special education reimbursement audit process and make
recommendations to improve its efficiency.
As part of the study, the Commissioner is required to examine whether
certified public accountants are qualified to perform special education
audits.
Commissioner is required to report his findings to the
legislature by January 15, 2009.
Section 36 of H.711
directs the Commissioner of Education to study the potential effects of
allowing a public school district that does not operate schools at all grade
levels to designate a Vermont public school as the school of the district. Current law allows the designation of
independent schools but not public schools.
The Commissioner is directed to recommend a policy regarding designation
to the legislature.
Commissioner is directed to report to the legislature
by January 15, 2009.
Section 37 of H.711
directs the Commissioner of Education to study alternative education programs
available to secondary students, particularly programs designed for students
who otherwise would be in danger of dropping out of school. The Commissioner is directed to catalog these
programs, identify processes to ensure academic continuity and quality in
alternative programs, and identify methods to pay the costs of such programs
with public funds. One concern with this
directive is that the term “alternative education programs” is not defined or
recognized in law, and neither the Commissioner nor the State Board has the
authority to define such programs.
Commissioner is directed to report to the legislature
by January 15, 2009.
Section 5.302.1 of the
appropriations bill directs the Commissioner of Education to join with the
Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Vermont-NEA, and our associations to
develop a detailed plan to create an incentive fund to distribute grants and
affordable loans to encourage collaborative efforts between school districts,
supervisory unions, and local governmental entities that will result in
property tax savings.
Group is directed to report to the legislature by
January 15, 2009.
Section 19 of S.357, a
bill related to domestic violence, establishes a committee to study harassment and
bullying in schools. The committee is to
study current policies, laws and trainings related to harassment, including
cyber bullying. The committee will be
convened and staffed by the Human Rights Commission, and is directed to create
a strategic plan to reduce harassment in schools. The committee will be comprised of our
associations along with numerous advocacy organizations and public
officials.
Committee is directed to report to the legislature by
December 15, 2009.
Section 3 of H.711
directs the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets and the Department of
Education to jointly perform a needs assessment on agricultural, forestry and
horticultural education in secondary schools and technical centers. The assessment must include an analysis of
the effectiveness of our schools in providing AF&H education, make
recommendations as to whether additional funding is needed.
Agencies are directed to report to the legislature by
January 15, 2009.
An extensive effort to repeal the two-vote mandate
that was enacted last year was unsuccessful this legislative session. The
prospects for repeal legislation appeared to seesaw all year but in the end,
the Senate leadership was resolved not to, “go back on
our promise to the Governor.”
The
efforts of VSA, VSBA and VPA members and others to contact legislators and
build support for the repeal of the two-vote requirement had a noticeable and
demonstrated effect in Montpelier. The House voted in late February to repeal
the provision, reversing course from a year ago. Senators Racine and McCormack also worked
diligently to bring the issue to the Senate floor, but the administration and
senatorial leadership thwarted those efforts.
In one instance, the Lieutenant Governor ruled that two-vote repeal
language was not “germane” to a tax policy bill that set the education tax
rates. By voice vote, the Senate almost
unanimously upheld the ruling, thereby making use of a procedural rule to avoid
publicly voting on an amendment that was divisive within its ranks.
Although it is inevitable
that the two-vote mandate will take effect in some school districts during the
next budget cycle, the law may still be revisited during the next legislative
session. There appear to be significant
numbers of lawmakers who now believe that the two-vote requirement is bad
policy. We will have to wait and see how
the elections play out in November, and who the legislative leadership will be
in the next biennium, but it remains possible that two-vote will be a “one and
done” statute, repealed in 2009.
The legislature decided against creating an Agency of
Education and eliminating the State Board of Education (SBE) as proposed in
S.371. No change was made to the
structure of state education governance this year. Some members of
the general assembly expressed a strong interest in making the Commissioner of
Education a gubernatorial appointment, but this idea was also ultimately
rejected.
