House Education reviews draft 7.1 to convert BOCES into statutory "seesaws," sets facilitator and study-committee rules
Loading...
Summary
The House Education committee examined draft 7.1, which would replace voluntary BOCES with statutorily required "seesaws," require seesaw bylaws, direct the Vermont Learning Collaborative to contract facilitators, set an ADM guideline for study committees and establish calendar-driven deadlines for reports and agency review.
The House Education committee on March 31 reviewed draft 7.1 of an education bill that would convert regional BOCES into statutorily required entities called "seesaws," set governance and membership rules for those entities, and require the Vermont Learning Collaborative to employ or contract facilitators to organize study committees.
Beth St. James, Legislative Council, told the committee that the draft replaces all references to BOCES with "seesaw," makes formation mandatory rather than voluntary, and adds a definition of cooperative educational service area. "Each seesaw shall establish bylaws to serve as the operating agreement of the seesaw," St. James said, noting that because membership will be established in statute, there is no bylaw withdrawal process and any change in membership would require a statutory change.
The draft also lists powers for a seesaw, including providing educational programs, services, facilities, and staff; offering professional development; coordinating curriculum; and providing transportation. St. James said the bill requires quarterly updates from a seesaw’s board to each member supervisory-union board and that seesaws must follow applicable state and federal law.
Committee members raised questions about who should sit on a seesaw board. One committee member said she worried that "they could become very political if they were all made up of board members," urging the committee to preserve administrative expertise in the governance mix. Members discussed allowing supervisory unions to appoint either a board member, superintendent, or designee and flagged the possibility that the membership approach might need revisiting now that formation is mandatory rather than voluntary.
On facilitation, the bill text directed the Vermont Learning Collaborative (referred to in the transcript as VTLC) to contract for or employ facilitators "on or before 10/01/2026." St. James said she left the number of required facilitators as an undecided policy variable (an "x" in the draft), explaining the committee could require VTLC to provide one facilitator for the entire state, one per region, or some other minimum. "I have made 0 determination of how many facilitators you are requiring VTLC to hire," she said.
Committee members pressed several operational details: whether one facilitator could facilitate multiple local study groups within a region, whether facilitators would be hired by VTLC or have local ties to the communities they serve, and what qualifications would be required. St. James said facilitators would work for VTLC and that the committee could add qualification language to the bill.
The draft sets rules for study committees that facilitators would assemble. Membership on study committees is proportional to average daily membership (ADM), seats are to be filled by school board members from participating districts, and participating districts must be contiguous. The draft includes a practical guideline that an aggregate ADM for a study committee should be a minimum of 2,000 students. "Average daily membership... shall be a minimum of 2,000 students as practical," St. James said.
Division B of the draft addresses study-committee budgets. St. James said the bill would give each study committee a working budget so the committee would not have to go to voters for small overruns; under current law, expenditures above $50,000 require voter approval and costs would be apportioned by ADM.
The committee also reviewed calendar-based deadlines in the draft: study committees must produce a final report on or before 12/01/2027; if the secretary fails to forward recommendations and proposed articles of agreement to the state board on or before 04/01/2028, the study committee may transmit the report directly to the state board; and the state board must issue findings on or before 06/01/2028. Members debated whether to revert to a 60-day agency response tied to receipt of a study committee report rather than a fixed calendar date.
Chair closed the bill walkthrough asking members and stakeholders to provide language comments before the bill reaches the House floor and said the committee will continue work on funding numbers and follow-up items, including a separate pre-K review with legislative council.
Next procedural steps: the committee will refine language on facilitator numbers and qualifications, identify funding amounts needed to implement facilitation and transition, and schedule a follow-up session with legislative council on the pre-K portions of the bill.
