Citizen Portal
Sign In

Superintendents highlight BOCES, special‑education capacity and school construction needs

Joint House and Senate Education Committees · January 13, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Witnesses told the joint committee that cooperative education service agencies (BOCES) improve special‑education evaluations, staffing and grant competitiveness for small districts; they also asked for committed school construction aid and transition funding to address failing facilities.

Sherry Souza, superintendent of Mountain View Supervisory Union, outlined how cooperative education service agencies (BOCES) have helped small districts pool resources for timely special‑education evaluations, professional development and cooperative purchasing. Souza said BOCES enabled her district to apply for grants "for over a $100,000" to support special‑education endorsements—opportunities a single small district could not access alone.

Pam Reed of Rutland City Public Schools said the CTE‑based map preserved access to the Stafford Technical Center and warned that governance changes that shift Rutland into a supervisory union could disrupt operational arrangements that currently benefit students. Reed and Souza both urged a firm, identified funding source for school construction aid tied to Act 73 so that districts can plan and avoid substituting capital costs for core educational programs.

Speakers also described urgent facilities needs at specific schools. Souza said Woodstock Union High School and Middle School are in a failing condition and need access to construction aid; other witnesses described failing boilers, cafeteria HVAC and prolonged restroom outages that affect learning conditions. Superintendents asked the legislature to fully execute Act 73's construction‑aid provisions and to exclude capital costs from calculations that trigger excess‑spending penalties.

The committee did not take formal action; members requested more detail on identified construction needs and on how transition funds might be structured to protect programming while facilities projects proceed.