Lawmakers debate who should develop a statewide school calendar; Agency of Education role proposed

Members of the Vermont House Committee on Education spent part of Wednesday’s meeting debating who should be asked to develop a statewide school calendar under proposals in H.454.

A sponsor raised the option of asking the field—local educators, administrators and school boards—to prepare regulatory recommendations for the AOE to forward to the State Board of Education. Several committee members responded that asking the Agency of Education to develop and publish a statewide calendar, ‘‘in consultation’’ with educators and the field, would be an appropriate first step and a practical way to start work on a complex issue.

Committee members repeatedly flagged collective-bargaining agreements as a central complication. One member said that the AOE “doesn’t understand what’s involved,” arguing that contracts among districts, boards and teacher unions contain provisions (for example, professional development and negotiated days) that a statewide calendar would have to respect. Other members suggested that any AOE-developed calendar include contingency or ‘‘snow’’ days at the end of the year so districts could finish the school year in roughly the same timeframe.

Several members proposed building an explicit consultation requirement into the bill language so that the AOE could not attempt to unilaterally impose calendar changes. Suggestions included using existing advisory bodies or creating a subcommittee of stakeholders—superintendents, principals, school board members and teacher representatives—to inform AOE work. A committee member noted that the AOE has expressed interest in taking on the task and that a requirement to work with practitioners would likely produce recommendations while preserving local bargaining rights.

Committee discussion also touched on process: members asked which actors would have final implementation authority if the Legislature required a statewide calendar and noted there is currently no established process for adopting a single, binding calendar across all districts. Several members said that, even if the AOE were charged to provide a calendar, the practical effect would be that districts and unions still would need to negotiate contract impacts and contingencies.

Committee chairs and staff said they would consider inserting ‘‘in consultation with educators in the field’’ into the calendar language to clarify expectations and preserve a role for those with on-the-ground operational experience. Members said they want to avoid the appearance that the AOE would unilaterally change negotiated terms such as professional-development days or teacher work-year provisions.

The committee did not adopt final language during the session; members asked staff to draft alternative language and flagged the issue for further discussion the following day.