Senate committee hears testimony on S.37 to extend summer unemployment insurance to school support staff

The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee heard extended testimony March 6 on S.37, a bill that would allow K‑12 school support staff to collect unemployment insurance during the summer months.

Proponents told the committee the change would help retain staff and stabilize classroom supports while opponents and staff warned that the benefit would shift costs to school districts. Witnesses cited Minnesota’s short program as the primary evidence base and urged Vermont lawmakers to seek accurate state fiscal estimates before advancing the bill.

The Economic Policy Institute’s Dave Camper, who analyzed Minnesota’s program for EPI, told the committee that his office projected Minnesota’s first‑year cost at about $32.7 million and that the state’s actual first‑year cost was $38.6 million. Camper said, “school bus drivers were by far the most likely to use this,” and that recipients in Minnesota increased in year two, when the program’s net benefit to workers rose to about $56 million. He cautioned that Minnesota’s “recipiency rate” — the share of unemployed workers who actually collect UI — is higher than Vermont’s, and that Vermont’s lower recipiency (he cited about 32 percent in Vermont versus 56 percent in Minnesota) could substantially reduce the program’s cost in-state. Camper also noted that school districts in many states are “direct reimbursers,” meaning district budgets, not the statewide UI trust fund, pay most claims.

Several current and former school support staff provided personal testimony on the effect of seasonal unemployment and turnover. Monique Beaudry, an administrative assistant at Woodbury Elementary School, described juggling multiple roles and the financial strain of not being paid through the summer, saying the first summer after she was hired she “didn’t get my first full check until September.” Becky (Rebecca) Pellegrini, a paraeducator of 36 years, said unpaid summers force many staff to take multiple jobs and that summer UI “would help tremendously to pay bills, purchase food, fuel oil, catch up from the past winter, and prepare for the next.”

Mandy Black, grievance chair and vice president of the Rutland Education Association, said support staff often take summer jobs and sometimes do not return to schools because year‑round positions with better pay become available. Jim Johnson, a long‑time school bus driver and operations manager at Green Mountain Transit, cited persistent turnover and training costs: “Our turnover rate for paraeducators and other support staff hovers some years close to 50%,” he said, and described barriers for recruiting certified bus drivers.

Committee members asked witnesses about likely Vermont costs. Members cited a wide fiscal estimate from the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) and asked EPI and the committee’s fiscal staff to refine numbers for Vermont. Camper said he would not project multi‑year Vermont costs without Vermont‑specific claims data, but he described how EPI converted Minnesota participation rates to ‘‘full‑time equivalent’’ users in its Vermont projection and that the EPI estimate for Vermont workers’ net benefit ranged from roughly $5.6 million (initial projection) to about $8 million under Minnesota’s year‑two participation.

Supporters emphasized retention and equity. Camper and witnesses noted that school support staff are disproportionately women and that many support positions are low‑paid and part‑time by design (short school days). Witnesses argued the policy could reduce turnover costs — which schools also bear — and suggested districts might use summer staffing creatively to avoid unemployment payouts by expanding summer programming.

Opponents and some committee members flagged unanswered budget impacts. Several senators and staff asked whether Minnesota’s temporary funding set‑aside ($137 million noted in testimony) and Illinois’s pandemic‑era, one‑summer program provide appropriate analogs for Vermont. Camper clarified that Illinois’ program ran only in summer 2020 and that Minnesota’s set‑aside was intended to give districts time to embed the cost into operating budgets.

The committee did not vote on S.37. Members requested additional fiscal analysis and written submissions from witnesses and asked JFO for a refined cost estimate for Vermont. Witnesses agreed to provide follow‑up materials, and EPI indicated it would remain available for technical questions. The committee then moved on to other labor and agency bills.

“This is a policy that’s worth pursuing,” Camper said of the idea to extend UI, while stressing state‑specific fiscal differences. Several support staff closed by stressing the effect of turnover on students’ daily experience and urging lawmakers to consider retention benefits alongside district costs.

What’s next: committee staff will seek updated fiscal information from the Joint Fiscal Office and invited written testimony and data from witnesses; no action was taken on S.37 at the hearing.

(Reporting note: direct quotes and numerical figures in this report are taken from the committee hearing transcript.)