Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Education reviews draft 5.1 of Act 73, sets 2,500 ADM floor for new supervisory unions
Summary
Legislative Council told the Senate Education Committee that draft 5.1 of Act 73 requires the State Board to report back on supervisory-union boundaries, sets a new minimum aggregate average daily membership of 2,500 for proposed supervisory unions, adds transition grants, and removes a previously proposed high‑school weight.
The Senate Education Committee on March 17 reviewed draft 5.1 of the governance modernization portion of Act 73 and heard staff explain several substantive changes to how supervisory unions and district mergers would be handled.
Beth James of the Office of the Legislative Council told the committee the draft flags many supervisory‑union and supervisory‑district memberships as TBD and adds a required State Board report with recommendations for adjusting boundaries in the designated “gray area.” She said the draft now directs the board, when proposing new supervisory unions, to recommend that the aggregate average daily membership (ADM) of member districts be not less than 2,500 students: "the member school districts of those supervisory unions should have an aggregate average daily membership of not less than 2,500 students," James said.
The draft also asks the State Board to include recommendations for whether school districts within newly drawn supervisory‑union boundaries should merge. James described a related provision that limits agency recommendations and final board orders to merging districts that share the same operating structure and sit within the same supervisory union.
Section 12 of the draft was amended to require the agency to include recommended appropriation amounts in its budget submission for transition grants, including a supervisory‑union transition facilitation grant that had previously been omitted. Committee staff also noted a substantive change not visible in the highlights: a previously proposed provision adding a high‑school weight was removed from the draft.
Committee members pressed staff on practical implications, including how a supervisory‑union superintendent would interact with local district boards and whether consolidation would reduce the number of local boards. Staff described a voluntary two‑year window for local mergers inside targeted colored areas; if districts do not undertake mergers, the State Board would act in year three and report to the Legislature on how to reduce district numbers by half in targeted areas.
No committee vote was recorded in the hearing. James and staff said the map and related materials will remain posted and that the State Board’s report back is part of the draft’s timeline for further work and potential legislative action.
The committee scheduled public testimony on the draft and heard several stakeholders later in the session. The next procedural step is for legislative staff and the committee to consider the State Board’s recommendations and for legislators to weigh any statutory changes in subsequent sessions.
