CABE Journal February 2013

68 33 25 7

('8&$7,21

$'92&$&<

7+(

www.cabe.org

-2851$/

&RQQHFWLFXW $VVRFLDWLRQ RI %RDUGV RI (GXFDWLRQ 7KH /HDGLQJ 9RLFH IRU &RQQHFWLFXW 3XEOLF (GXFDWLRQ Vol. 17, No. 2

View from the Capitol

February 2013

³2XW RI WKH SXEOLF VFKRROV JURZV WKH JUHDWQHVV RI D QDWLRQ ´ 0DUN 7ZDLQ 1RY

WINDSOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

School Security Symposium

Patrice A. McCarthy, Deputy Director and General Counsel, CABE

Interview with Rae Ann Knopf Executive Director CCER Robert Rader, Executive Director, CABE Editorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Note: CABE Executive Director Robert Rader sat down with Rae Ann Knopf, Executive Director, Connecticut Council for Education Reform (CCER) to provide information about who CCER is and what part they will play in education reform.

Bob: Tell me about yourself first, Rae Ann, before we start talking about CCER. Rae Ann: I spent a lot of years developing schools for kids who struggle in a traditional educational environment both public and private. Ultimately, I went to work in Vermont at the State level. First as director of services for special needs students and then ultimately as the

81 Wolcott Hill Road Wethersfield, CT 06109-1242

of Boards of Education Inc. Connecticut Association

The tragedy in Newtown has made school security, as well as gun violence prevention and mental health, the immediate priority of the state legislature.

The special legislative task force set up to address these issues hopes to have legislation adopted by the end of February.

The Governorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandy Hook Advisory Commission will present an initial report on many of these same issues by March 15th. On February 6, Governor Malloy will release his two year biannual budget, which will most likely impact local revenues.

While these issues will consume much of the Legislatureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s time and attention, legislation related to the implementation of the new educator evaluation and support system, secondary school reform, small school districts, and mandate reduction will also be discussed.

In addition to expressing your views to legislators through public hearing testimony-in person or in writing and reading.

CABEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Day on the Hill, March 6 will provide an ideal opportunity for further discussion to reinforce your message.

Registration materials were sent out at the end of January to all member board members, superintendents and staff, and others. If you did not receive your registration information and would like to attend, please contact Gail Heath at 860571-7446 or email gheath@cabe.org.

Deputy Commissioner of Education; before that I was a School Administrator for many years, developing and running schools for special needs Rae Ann Knopf students and overseeing multiple schools across the country.

Bob: So, tell me now about the Connecticut Council for Education Reform.

How did you get involved?

Rae Ann: After living several years in Vermont and my son went off to college, my husband and I decided that we wanted to move to Connecticut. I knew several people in Connecticut and knew the work that was happening in the State to close gaps for kids who were really struggling and learned about the Connecticut Council for Education Reform. Coalitionbuilding work seemed a natural fit for me. I also appreciated that CCER represents business and civic leaders. This voice is really needed in supporting education.

Bob: Tell us a little about the board of CCER itself.

Rae Ann: Our board is a group of 16 Connecticut business and civic leaders and they are on the board voluntarily. We are a nonprofit 501(c)3. We believe See INTERVIEW page 10

Editorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Note: This Symposium was sponsored by CABE, CAPSS, CAS, CASBO and SDE. The information below was provided in a press release issued by the above groups. For more information on what was presented, please see the handouts located at www.cabe.org/ page.cfm?p=861 or call the CABE Office.

The Connecticut School Security Symposium, held in Southington on January 7, drew approximately 850 participants, including municipal officials, police and fire personnel, members of boards of education, superintendents of schools and the members of their central office cabinets and school business officials.

The purpose of the Symposium was to give symposium participants a comprehensive set of tools that can be used in each Connecticut community to address the issue of school safety. The Symposium was designed so that participants would leave with useful information that would help the leaders of every Connecticut community design and implement their communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response in a manner based on the latest information as to what is effective.

The morning session of the Symposium was devoted to presentations on four phases of an appropriate response to the issue of school security.

I.

Prevention-Mitigation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Useful tools for preventing incidents that put children and staff at risk. During the session, attendees were reminded See SCHOOL page 4

INSIDE THIS EDITION President Commentary ......................... 2 Executive Director Commentary ........... 3 See You in Court .................................. 5 Video surveillance cameras .................. 6 Windsor: Toward a vision of equity and excellence ................... 8 Testifying before the Legislature ........11 Referendum Tips ................................. 12 Pre-school magnet school tuition .......13 Communicating 24/7 ........................... 15

Periodical Postage PAID Hartford, CT

2

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

PRESIDENT COMMENTARY

Moving forward together Today is a “snow day.” Outside, the air is thick and silent. Inside, I sit in front of my computer screen as the day goes gray to grayer. I reflect on the highlights of the past year, accomplishments and tragedies alike while staying focused on what this new year will bring.

Last winter and spring, we faced the continued educational challenges of governing our school systems.

Hence, monumental Education Reform was created, passed and implemented.

Fall brought us a new school year with new promises; new action plans; new requests and new realities.

Students returned with new dreams. Educators returned with new goals. We moved forward with one mission – dedicating our common commitment to do our best for our kids.

Weather ushered in Superstorm Sandy. Overnight, in neighboring states, neighboring districts – classrooms were obliterated. Students were displaced while their education was put on hold. Yet schools were reinvented as they resurrected themselves into cardboard classrooms. Their teachers gathered together and collaborated by sharing materials.

Because learning doesn’t get swept away by wind or water in the ocean. Because education endures all

things, from deep tracks to dark skies. Because we are who we are as educators in America.

Because we are devoted to our kids.

During the Election, President Obama asked us to rally around a set of goals for our country.

Lydia Tedone Amongst the included were national security, the deficit and education.

The year was closing and in Hartford, questions abounded regarding funding and resources for the recent education reform initiatives, committed by our Legislators in the recent months.

Then came Sandy Hook. Life halted. We came to a standstill. Everything else seemed unimportant…

The New Year rang in a new reality for all of us. We are learning to live with reduced funding for promised initiatives; we are still sweeping away sand and debris from a hurricane and more importantly….we are rebuilding our lives in Newtown.

CABE Board of Directors EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Lydia Tedone .................................................. President, Simsbury Richard Murray ............................. First Vice President, Killingly Ann Gruenberg ........... VP for Government Relations, Hampton Stephen Wright ............. VP for Professional Development, Trumbull Robert Mitchell ............................ Secretary/Treasurer, Montville Don Blevins ........................................... Immediate Past President John Prins ........................................................... Member at Large

AREA DIRECTORS Susan Hoffnagle ....................... Area 1 Co-Director, Winchester Mari-Ellen (Mimi) Valyo ........ Area 1 Co-Director, Winchester Daniel Santorso ........................... Area 1 Co-Director, Plymouth Becky Tyrrell ................................. Area 2 Co-Director, Plainville Susan Karp ..................................... Area 2 Co-Director, Glasbonbury Don Harris ........................................ Area 2 Co-Director, Bloomfield Laura Bush .................................................. Area 3 Director, Vernon Douglas Smith ...................................... Area 4 Co-Director, Plainfield Steve Rosendahl .............................. Area 4 Co-Director, Woodstock Gavin Forrester ................................... Area 6 Co-Director, Stratford Elaine Whitney ................................... Area 6 Co-Director, Westport Sheila McCreven ........................... Area 7 Co-Director, Woodbridge John Prins ............................................ Area 7 Co-Director, Branford Pamela Meier ............................................. Area 8 Director, Madison Gail MacDonald .................................... Area 9 Director, Stonington

ASSOCIATES

Letter to the Editor

Eileen Baker ........................................... Associate, Old Saybrook Sharon Beloin-Saavedra .......................... Associate, New Britain Gary Brochu ........................................................ Associate, Berlin Robert Guthrie .......................................... Associate, West Haven Cal Heminway ................................................... Associate, Granby

We Are Family

COMMITTEE CHAIRS Elizabeth Brown ............................ Chair, State Relations, Montville Beverly Washington ....................... Chair, Federal Relations, Groton Becky Tyrrell ....................................... Chair, Resolutions, Plainville

The tragic events in Newtown have been cause for all of us to reflect on the safety and security of our community’s children. All of us, parents and non-parents alike, have grieved at the loss of so many innocent lives. While emotionally wrenching, this collective grief is also instructive, as it serves as a stark reminder that the well-being of the children of our community is charged to all of us; that we all bear a shared responsibility to ensure that all of our children are safe and cared for.

In the wake of this tragedy, it is natural that we worry about and focus on issues of security. This focus is appropriate and necessary, and is ongoing. For example, the Superintendent of Schools will be holding a public forum on January 15th to facilitate a public conversation on security at our schools.

CITY REPRESENTATIVES Jacqueline Kelleher ......................... City Representative, Bridgeport Matthew Poland ................................. City Representative, Hartford Carlos Torre ................................... City Representative, New Haven Polly Rauh ......................................... City Representative, Stamford Charles Stango ............................... City Representative, Waterbury

STAFF No one can dispute that a conversation and focus on school security is both timely and important. But if our only response to the tragedy in Newtown is to have a conversation about locks and surveillance cameras and security guards, then we will have lost the opportunity presented to us to have a vital conversation about how we, as individuals and as a community, provide for the emotional and physical well-being of our children.

Let’s utilize the challenge before us as an opportunity to refocus of what is most essential and eternal in our lives, and draw upon this insight to inform a community-wide discussion on how best to protect and provide for the children of our community. While the challenge before us is great, we should draw strength from the knowledge that none of us need do this work alone, and that we have the privilege of living in a community that has a tradition and culture of protecting and providing for our children.

We have before us an opportunity to come together - school board and town government, parents and non-parents, young and old - to have a meaningful conversation on how we can collectively create a community which not only protects our children, but cares for and nurtures them as well. When we look back at this awful time, let us be able to look back on it as a moment when our community put aside partisan and individual interests, and embraced our shared calling to care for the most vulnerable and innocent among us. Let us be able to look on it as the moment we chose to become, not just a community, but a family.

Gary Brochu President, Berlin Board of Education

Robert Rader ...................................................................... Executive Director Patrice McCarthy ................................ Deputy Director and General Counsel Bonnie Carney ........................................... Sr. Staff Associate for Publications Nicholas Caruso ............................................ Sr. Staff Assoc. for Field Service and Coord. of Technology Sheila McKay ............................ Sr. Staff Associate for Government Relations Kelly Moyher ......................................................................... Sr. Staff Attorney Vincent Mustaro ..................................... Sr. Staff Associate for Policy Service Lisa Steimer .............................. Sr. Staff Assoc. for Professional Development Teresa Costa ............................... Coordinator of Finance and Administration Pamela Brooks ......................... Sr. Admin. Assoc. for Policy Ser. /Search Ser. Terry DeMars .............................................. Admin. Assoc. for Policy Service Melissa Dickinson ........................... Admin. Assist. for Membership Services Gail Heath ...................................... Admin. Assoc. for Government Relations Wilmarie Newton ...................................... Admin. Assoc. for Labor Relations Corliss Ucci .............................. Receptionist/Asst. to the Executive Director

The CABE Journal (ISSN 1092-1818) is published monthly except a combined issue for July/August as a member service of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, 81 Wolcott Hill Road, Wethersfield, CT 06109, (860) 571-7446. CABE membership dues include $30 per person for each individual who receives The CABE Journal. The subscription rate for nonmembers is $75.

Association membership dues include a subscription for each board member, superintendent, assistant superintendent and business manager. The companies and advertisements found in The CABE Journal are not necessarily endorsed by CABE. “Periodicals Postage Paid at Hartford, CT.” POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The CABE Journal, CABE, 81 Wolcott Hill Road, Wethersfield, CT 06109-1242. Email: bcarney@cabe.org.

Members can find the CABE Journal online at: www.cabe.org/ userlogin.cfm?pp=84&userrequest=true&keyrequest=false& userpage=84

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

3

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTARY

CABE Affiliate Members BUSINESS AFFILIATES DIAMOND MEMBER ACT, Inc. - Northeast Region Finalsite GOLD

MEMBERS

Berchem, Moses & Devlin Shipman & Goodwin Siegel, O'Connor, O’Donnell & Beck, P.C Sullivan, Schoen, Campane & Connon

SILVER MEMBERS Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Corporate Cost Control Milone & MacBroom, Inc. Quisenberry Arcari Architects The Segal Company

BRONZE PLUS MEMBERS Brown & Brown Insurance Friar Associates Goldstein & Peck, P.C. Lindburg & Ripple O & G Industries The S/L/A/M Collaborative Trane Whitsons School Nutrition

BRONZE MEMBERS Chinni & Meuser LLC Dattco Inc. Fuller & D’Angelo Architects and Planners Kainen, Escalera & McHale, P.C. The Lexington Group Muschell & Simoncelli Ovations Benefits Group

EDUCATIONAL AFFILIATES American School for the Deaf Area Cooperative Educational Services Capitol Region Education Council The College Board Connecticut Association of School Business Officials Cooperative Educational Services Connecticut Center for School Change Connecticut School Buildings and Grounds Association EASTCONN EDUCATION CONNECTION LEARN Unified School District #1

Dealing with Tragedy – and Drawing Lessons from It school districts that they have As the Legislative Session begins and heard from students that they bethe Governor presents his budget, many lieve that if minority students had of us are still focused on the Newtown been the victims, less attention tragedy. The January CABE Journal went would have been paid and less help to publication before this horrific event offered. There are, unfortunately, and I thought it might be helpful to comshootings, luckily, not of this magniment from a CABE position after having tude, outside of schools in many of had a little time to process what hapRobert Rader our cities and they appear to be pened. treated as if they were a “normal” The event gained international focus ciations across the country. Califoccurrence. and shocked all of us who are dedicated ornia’s Executive Director Vernon to public education as well as the larger Billy, offered to fly in people to help All students must feel valued and community. In the aftermath, CABE, as Newtown. Rick Lewis, from Ohio, cared for. No, schools alone cannot well as other organizations, tried to help in put us in touch with a board in his serve deal with the ills of society as ways that we could, for the school disstate, which had gone through a they are visited upon the youngest trict, its students and staff, school board school shooting. We got other wonof us. But, we must find better ways and superintendent. derful cards, letters, phone calls, to help those who feel so undervalOur hearts remain with the Newtown offers and resources, almost immecommunity. Who among diately, from NSBA and us did not shed tears over the Council of School “CABE’s pledge to our members and to all the senselessness of the Attorneys. Attorneys event? who have advised of our other friends is not only that we will After the tragedy, we, districts in similar tragic other associations, the continue to ‘hold hands’ with Newtown, circumstances are Governor, State Departproviding ongoing but continue to work to strengthen the ment of Education and the consultation to Newtown people of the State and and its attorneys. public education community.”

Nation focused on what was immediately necesThis is just a mention of the support ued, even uncared about by so sary. We will all continue to support and, yes, love that our Association many of our citizens.

Newtown, even as the cameras and microgot—Newtown itself got so many • Mental health must be a bigger facphones leave. offers that they had to slow down tor in how we assess our students, the whole process. and how society addresses all other members of our communities. IdentLessons?

And, maybe this is one of the most ification and treatment will not alPerhaps one of the ways we can, in our important lessons from this awful ways solve mental health concerns, own small way, provide some guidance to tragedy: there are thousands and especially at a time of such distress those in public education, is to draw lesthousands of people, not only in our communities. Ensuring the sons from what happened. Here are some across the country, but throughout mental health of all of our citizens is of my thoughts as we try to make sense of the world, who want to help when a societal issue, not only a school this event: such a tragedy strikes. The issue. But, we must be able to pro• Our boards, superintendents, princicommunity of Monroe, especially its vide help and be able to say that we pals, teachers and every other memschool district is a prime example of did the best we could in dealing ber of our public education comthe willingness to give. It is with our students in such difficult munity understand that the wellheartwarming that people want to circumstances. being of our students is our first stand in solidarity and unity with • We must find better ways to prevent and highest priority. There should Newtown. The whole public violence. It is beyond CABE’s purbe no doubt that the heroism we education community, from the view to recommend how many bulsaw from those in Newtown is emGovernor on down, hurt when our lets a clip should have or what type blematic of our teaching force, adstudents are threatened. of guns should be illegal. But, we ministrators and all other members do believe that the violence in our of school staff.

We are like the principal in one of culture is not in the best interests of • There may be no way to prevent a our Connecticut schools who asked our students or our citizens and will mentally ill individual or a person students and members of the faculty back efforts to ensure a more huwith evil intent from entering a to hold hands when they returned mane view of the world. school unless we turn our buildings to school the Monday after the • We must remember that we are not shootings, to enable themselves to into fortresses or prisons. There will feel strength and unity. alone in dealing with these difficult always need to be a balance beissues. As soon as the horrible tween security and access. EnsurCABE’s pledge to our members and to event occurred, the offers (to CABE ing that schools are secure and and, I know, our sister associations) all of our other friends is not only that we have an appropriate, positive cliwill continue to “hold hands” with began to flood in. We heard from mate is critical. But, we must continNewtown, but continue to work to New Zealand’s school boards assoue to balance our desire more secustrengthen the public education commuciation Executive Director Ray rity with more parental and community.

Newport. nity involvement in our schools.

We know that all of our members are • There have been articles from Conunified in this crucial objective.

We were contacted by executive dinecticut newspapers and comments The future of Connecticut, its citizens rectors and others from state assofrom mental health officials in city and our students is at stake.

4

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

School Security Symposium (continued from page 1) that there are no simple or one-sizefits-all solutions. It is important for all of the key players in each community – schools, municipal officials

reminded of the importance of all four phases of this work and that each needs to be done consistently and well.

The afternoon session was devoted to two topics.

l. to r. David Esquith, Director, Office of Safe and Healthy Students, U.S. Department of Education introduced morning speakers: John Akers, Executive Director, Kentucky Safe School Center, Sue Graves, Safety Coordinator, Lincoln County School District, Oregon; Major Ian Moffett, Miami Police Department/Miami Policy Training Center; Marleen Wong, Assistant Dean and Clinical Professor, University of Southern California.

(fire and police) - to collaborate to develop a plan that is specific to the community. Channels of communication between all of these agencies need to be open at all times and plans should be reviewed annually.

Presented by: Jon Akers, Executive Director, Kentucky Safe School Center II. Preparedness – Useful tools for preparing children and staff to react in case a risk incident occurs. There are agencies that will come in to provide preparedness audits for districts.

Presented by: Sue Graves, Safety Coordinator, Lincoln County School District, Oregon III. Response – Useful tools for designing and implementing a plan for responding to a risk incident.

Response procedures need to be practiced on a regular basis and alterations should be made as needed.

1. Building Design Strategies for Securing School Buildings – Useful recommendations for making relatively inexpensive building alterations and for incorporating alterations of a larger scale in building renovation projects.

Presented Robert Ducibella by: Robert Ducibella, Founding Principal, DVS Security Consulting and Engineering Gregory J. Smolley, AIA, AICP, LEED AP, Principal/Director, JCJ Architecture The architects emphasized the importance of controlling access to buildings (locking doors, installing buzzer systems, installing surveillance cameras with an assigned person to watch the screens). There needs to be

a clear line of site from all buildings– hedges should be no higher than four feet and branches hanging no lower than eight feet.

National School Boards Association’s Council of School Attorneys and the law firm of Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C., which represents Newtown. Mr. O’Meara works with NSBA and other groups on school safety issues.

Gregory J. Smolley

Strong recommendations were made to have the ‘as built’ architectural drawings shared with police and fire departments so that they are familiar with all building access points. Administrators were encouraged to schedule regular walk-throughs with police and fire departments.

2. Legal and Policy Implications for Boards of Education – Useful recommendations for addressing school security issues from a local school system policy and legal perspective.

Legal and policy issues are among the most important that will be faced by boards of education as they contemplate the best safety policies and processes in their districts.

Attorney O’Meara discussed considerations that they must understand, including the incorporation of various Shamus O’Meara protocols and examining school climate in particular.

Deb Delisle

presenters by the Connecticut State Department of Education with the leadership of the Connecticut Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor Stefan Pryor, who also participated in the Symposium.

Also, speaking at the Symposium were:

Joseph Cirasuolo

Presented by: Shamus O’Meara, Esq., O’Meara, Leer, Wagner & Kohl.

Deputy Director and General Counsel Patrice McCarthy was critical in making the connection between

Presented by: Major Ian Moffett, Miami Police Department/Miami Police Training Center IV. Recovery – Useful tools for assisting children, staff, parents and community members recover from a risk incident. Attendees were encouraged to keep in mind that every individual’s recovery pattern is different and recovery responses need to allow room for people to respond in a way that is consistent for them.

Presented by: Marleen Wong, Assistant Dean and Clinical Professor, University of Southern California Throughout the day, attendees were

Presenters at the morning session were secured via the cooperation of the U.S. Department of Education with the leadership of Deb Delisle, the Assistant Secretary of Education for Elementary and Secondary Education who also participated in the Symposium.

Mr. Ducibella and Mr. Smolley were recruited as

Some of the 850+ participants who attended the School Security Symposium.

Robert Rader

Sharon Bruce

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

5

See You in Court – The Nutmeg Board of Education

The Nutmeg Board deals with an attempt to remove a board member Thomas B. Mooney, Esq. Shipman & Goodwin

The Nutmeg Board of Education makes many mistakes. The latest imbroglio created by the board will be report-ed here each issue, followed by an ex-planation of what the board should have done. Though not intended as legal ad-vice, these situations may help board members avoid common problems.

Penny Pincher had served on the Nutmeg Board of Education for five years, and regular attendance at Board meetings had always been important to her. But as happens, things changed for Penny when Penny’s daughter gave birth to Vivian, Penny’s first granddaughter.

Suddenly, the Board of Education and all its intrigue were unimportant to Penny, as she spent all of her free time visiting her daughter and her new granddaughter “Vivi.” For over a month now, Penny had not attended a single Board meeting.

Penny’s dereliction did not escape the notice of veteran Board member Bob Bombast. At the beginning of the first

meeting this month, Bob pointed to Penny’s empty chair and insisted that the Board had to do something about Penny.

Just as Bob was working himself into a lather, Mr. Superintendent’s cell phone rang. “It’s Penny,” he announced. “She is watching on cable, and she wants me to put this on speaker so that she can participate in the Board meeting tonight without leaving Vivi.”

“No way!” responded Bob. “We dragged ourselves through the snow and cold to get here, and we can’t let Penny or others start ‘phoning it in.’ The Board has important business to conduct, and we shouldn’t be doing it over the telephone.”

“Sorry, Penny,” Mr. Superintendent conveyed the message to Penny. “Maybe you can tear yourself away from Vivi for the next meeting . . . .” With that, Mr. Superintendent signed off, and the Board went about its business.

But Bob did not get over his indignation, and at the end of the meeting, he insisted on adding an executive session item, “Discussion concerning removal of a Board member.” Mr. Chairperson

Seventh Edition Now Available

A Practical Guide to Connecticut School Law

by Thomas B. Mooney, Esq. Shipman & Goodwin The Guide comes with a CD which provides hyperlinks to many cases and statutes and will permit word searches as a supplement to the Index.

New to the Seventh Edition: Bullying, Background Checks, Child Abuse Reporting, Discrimination Issues, Educational Reform, FERPA, Freedom of Information, State Aid for Education and much, much more The 7th edition is now available from CABE. Call and order your copy TODAY at 860.571.7446 or 800.317.0033

acquiesced, and at the end of the meeting, he, Bob and the other Board members chatted confidentially about Penny’s fixation on her granddaughter and what they could do.

Bob suggested some sort of psychiatric evaluation to determine fitness for Board service, but the other members demurred. They agreed that Board member Mal Content, Penny’s closest friend on the Board, would meet with her and try to convince her to come to the next meeting.

Penny was again absent at the meeting last night. Bob noticed right away, and under Communications, he asked Mal for a report on Penny’s whereabouts.

“It didn’t go so well,” Mal began.

“Penny has no interest in leaving Vivi at night. But she told me she remains committed to fulfilling her responsibilities as a Board member. So she gave me this notarized proxy. She has authorized me to vote on her behalf on all matters.

So I will.”

“Wait a minute,” Bob thundered. “I know our Bylaws, and proxy voting is not permitted. I move that Penny be removed as a Board member. Now!” “I am sorry, Bob,” responded Mr. Chairperson. “Your motion is out of order, but I can put it on a future agenda.

However, until then I will allow proxy voting by Mal on Penny’s behalf. I know the Bylaws too, and they are silent on this point.”

Bob began to raise a point of order, but Mr. Chairman quieted Bob with a peremptory Shusssh! Uncharacteristically, Bob was silent. But his mind was working overtime. He would not give up that easily. Should Bob prevail here?

Removing Penny from office is not possible, but Bob made some good points.

We should start the discussion by reviewing how boards of education do their business. Boards of education are deliberative bodies. They make their decisions by discussion, reflection and vote of their members. That is why, when a board member has a conflict of interest, he or she may not participate in the discussion – the discussion is an integral part of the decision-making process.

Given that fact, it would never be appropriate for a board of education to permit proxy voting. Board members should base their decisions on all the information they receive about issues before the board, especially the discussion at the board table.

A proxy vote would be cast before the discussion even occurs, and the board member would not have the benefit of hearing from other board members before making a decision. If that were appropriate procedure, boards of education would not even have to meet, and all the board members could read the packet

and phone in their decisions.

Participation in board meetings by electronic means stands on a different footing. The key word, however, is “participation.” Under the Freedom of Information Act, members of public agencies are permitted to hold meetings “by electronic means or otherwise,” and some boards have permitted their members to participate in their meetings remotely.

However, there are practical problems to consider in permitting such remote participation. What should the board do if the remote connection cannot be achieved or is lost? Should board time be spent trying to reconnect? How do we know that the board member is paying attention? How do we assure that the board member participating remotely preserves confidentiality of executive session discussion?

Some of these issues involve trust, but these concerns should be considered and addressed in policy before allowing electronic participation.

The Board here erred in convening an executive session to discuss removal of Penny. As a threshold matter, there is no mechanism under state law for the removal of a board of education member.

In an extreme case, a board could ask a court to exercise its equitable powers to issue appropriate orders to avoid disruption of board business by a rogue board member.

But mere absenteeism is a problem in which moral suasion, not judicial intervention, would more likely be successful.

There was also a problem with the Board’s executive session discussion of Penny.

The Board may discuss the “appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal” of a Board member in the same way it may discuss an employee, but Board members who are discussed have the same right as employees to receive prior notice and require, if they wish, that discussion as to them occur in open session.

At a regular meeting, the Board could have added the item to the agenda by a two-thirds vote, but advance notification to Penny would still be required.

Finally, Bob could have challenged the procedural ruling by Mr. Chairperson to permit Penny to vote by proxy. He should have raised a point of order, articulating his concern.

If Mr. Chairperson maintained his position, Bob could have appealed, and if another Board member seconded his appeal, the decision would have been taken from Chairperson and given to the Board as a whole.

Attorney Thomas B. Mooney is a partner in the Hartford law firm of Shipman & Goodwin who works frequently with boards of education.

Mooney is a regular contributor to the CABE Journal.

6

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

Video surveillance cameras – A policy perspective Vincent A. Mustaro Senior Staff Associate for Policy Service, CABE

The tragedy in Newtown has sadly caused us to realize that schools are not the safe places we thought they were.

Anything can happen when certain circumstances facilitate a tragic situation.

Security more than ever is a huge issue for schools.

Safeguarding the well-being of all students and staff is a primary concern for schools. Providing the safest possible environment for students and staff must be a focus for board members and reflected in district policy. Technological devices now available can help to improve security, but these should be viewed as part of an overall plan for improved security.

Schools are increasingly installing video surveillance cameras in order to increase safety and security for students and staff.

Electronic Monitoring In addition, protecting the investment of the district’s building and grounds is the board’s responsibility. An electronic monitoring system using video surveillance equipment can help to provide protection from fire, water damage and vandalism. Video surveillance is important at building points of entry and in corridors, hallways, stairwells, common areas, and around the property of a school, including parking lots.

Schools constantly struggle with the issue of proper access control for visitors.

School administrators struggle with maintaining a balance between having a user-friendly, welcoming school climate and a facility which is secure from unwanted intruders.

While even the best school access control efforts will likely not guarantee that a determined outsider will not be able to gain access to the school, reasonable necessary steps must be taken to reduce the risks of unauthorized access.

Security cameras at entrance doors make it possible to monitor visitors and provide controlled entrance into the building. Video assessment and security cameras can enhance the staff’s ability to respond to attacks or emergencies quickly and appropriately. In addition, the systems can also function as alarms if configured with video motion detection capability.

Decreased equipment costs have resulted in a proliferation of surveillance cameras. The question for board members, given the risk and liability issues, is whether the district can afford to not make the investment of such devices as part of an over-all plan. Before installing such equipment, a thorough inventory or risk

assessment of the district’s needs and security concerns should be conducted to address the security threats the cameras could address and how the system will be maintained and staffed. Equipment such as surveillance cameras is only as good as the human element behind it.

Factors to Consider There are many factors to consider when setting up a school security system.

Some factors to consider, when setting up security cameras include: • What is considered to be the most pressing security threat?

• What kind of security is currently in place?

• Does the school district have security protocol that must be followed?

• Are there problems with crime and violence in the surrounding area?

• Are there areas in the school where students congregate that have caused problems?

School officials must weigh the benefits and costs of their decision. Most school districts believe that installing video surveillance equipment will help students focus on their studies and not worry about outside violence. Other benefits include deterring crime, and savings on insurance premiums.

The district must also consider initial set-up costs, maintenance and personnel costs, which can be prohibitive for some districts.

Whether the cameras will be monitored “real-time” by trained personnel or whether the images will be recorded and later used as “evidence” must be determined. It is possible to install cameras that are linked over the Internet with local police departments, giving law enforcement real-time access to various school locations, thereby improving security.

Informing the Public The public should be informed when security cameras are present. The presence of such equipment has a deterrent effect. Also, a notice of security cameras will blunt any argument about an expectation of privacy. Cameras don’t violate any laws unless they invade the private space of an individual.

Courts are in general agreement about the legal principle that students in schools have fewer privacy rights than when they are on their own time, out-ofschool. The notice of the system’s presence should be placed in student and parent handbooks, on the district’s website and other public places where the equipment is being used.

Although the courts have not ruled on

the use of surveillance systems in a school setting, generally the use of cameras (i.e., a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment) must be reasonable and the cameras should not be located where there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Therefore, cameras should not be located in areas such as bathrooms, locker rooms, or private offices. Cameras may generally be used at school building entry points, in hallways, stairwells, parking lots, cafeterias and school buses. If the district’s equipment has audio capability, it should be disabled because audio surveillance usually requires a warrant.

Student Record Issues The images of students captured on security videotapes contain personally identifiable student information and are considered confidential in accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The status of school videotape footage under FERPA has been the subject of considerable uncertainty in the courts.

The U.S. Department of Education’s guidance on this issue indicated that “images of students captured on security videotapes that are maintained by the school’s law enforcement unit are not considered records under FERPA. Accordingly, these videotapes may be shared with parents of students whose images are on the video and with outside law enforcement authorities, as appropriate. Schools that do not have a designated law enforcement unit might consider designating an employee to serve as the ‘law enforcement unit’ in order to maintain the security cameras and determine the appropriate circumstances in which the school should disclose recorded images.”

The guidance also indicated that K-12 educators may disclose any educational records, including personally identifiable information, to protect the health or safety of a student or other individuals.

It is considered in the district’s best interests to indicate that the videotapes retain their status as educational records subject to FERPA’s restrictions on their release. They should not be destroyed as long as there is an outstanding request to

inspect and review them.

The right to inspect should be provided only for those parents whose students are the cause for the retention of the video recordings. Parents of students “inadvertently” caught in the video would not have the right to inspect them, nor is their permission required to have the video viewed by the parents of the involved students.

The FERPA Compliance Office has provided “informal advice” that in the case of a video or other picture image of one or more students and where there are students in the background, the video is “directly related” to, and thus the educational record of the student or students who are the subject of the video and not the students merely in the background.

With regard to parents of those students that are the focal point of the video being permitted to view the video, a school need not obtain the consent of the parents of the two students involved and may show both sets of parents the video, because this would typically be the education record of both students, especially in situations involving altercation.

In this case however, where there is more than one student that is the focus of the video, while the school may provide a parent with access to the video without the prior consent of the other parent, the school may not give a copy of the video to any of the parents without the consent of the other students’ parents.

Regardless of whether a district utilizes video surveillance equipment, remember that regarding security and safety, the first and best line of defense is a welltrained and highly alert school staff and student body. Cameras do not guarantee security and cannot be seen as a failsafe means for security.

Policies must be adhered to in order to maximize the value of cameras without negatively impacting the learning environment. Security cameras are intended to provide a tool to increase security and safety, but viewed as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for a comprehensive school safety program.

Policy #5131.111, “Video Surveillance,” and its accompanying administrative regulations pertain to this topic.

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

The art of making people smile.

Delta Dental knows what it takes to keep you and your employees happy.

At Delta Dental, we can help you create a dental plan that’s sure to paint a smile on your employees faces: • Expertise. We’re part of the most experienced dental benefits company in the country.

• Flexibility. We can help you design a plan that meets your needs and budget—without compromising on value.

• Network of Dentists. We offer access to the largest network of dentists in the U.S.— with 4 out of 5 dentists participating nationwide.

• Simplicity. You can count on us for easy plan administration.

• Customer Satisfaction. Add it all up: the largest network, unbeatable expertise, flexibility, value and cost savings, and it’s easy to see why Delta Dental is your best choice.

Delta Dental. We’re committed to promoting oral health for all your employees.

Call 1-860-633-9200 or visit www.deltadentalct.com.

In CT, Delta Dental Insurance Company writes dental coverage on an insured basis and Delta Dental of New Jersey administers self-funded dental benefit programs.

7

8

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

Windsor: Toward a vision of equity and excellence Doreen Richardson, President, Windsor Board of Education

The Windsor Board of Education began its 2011-2013 term optimistic and committed to creating the conditions that foster highly effective teaching and learning. The organizing principle in our work and deliberations has been the pursuit of equity and excellence – that each and every student in the Windsor Public Schools has an equitable opportunity to learn and experience academic excellence.

The data shows that equity and excellence has been an elusive goal.

Windsor Public Schools is among the 30 lowest performing districts in the State of Connecticut. This dubious distinction uneasily coexists in a town with just a 2% poverty rate, a median household income as of 2009 of approximately $80K, and an educational investment of $14.9k per student.

Our newly elected Superintendent of Schools, with the support of the Board of Education, has begun to retool and reform Windsor Public Schools. To enrich and inform this foundational work, the Board has approved an Equity and Excellence Review of Windsor High School. This

action research strategy for improving student achievement has been included in the District’s Alliance grant proposal, which has been approved by the State Department of Education.

As measured by CAPT, Windsor High School has experienced general low student achievement, and persistent achievement gaps between groups of students. This gap cannot be explained by student-family income, language acquisition needs, or special education status.

The Equity and Excellence Review (EER) is an action-research professional development model for building and

organizing the capacity of educators to meet the academic, emotional and social needs of culturally and economically diverse learners.

The goal is to examine every aspect of learning, teaching and leadership (school board included) critical to student achievement at Windsor High School through multiple sources of data. It draws upon 60 years of educational research for creating excellent schools serving racially and economically diverse learners.

This comprehensive method goes far beyond an equity audit, which only analyzes preexisting achievement and school program data. Such a method can

Windsor High School % of Students At/Above Goal - Reading Year

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Black

25

21

20

15

14

16

Latino

21

23

27

26

19

29

White

55

52

52

47

50

45

Windsor

35

33

33

29

27

26

Source: www.captreports.com; Results are not presented for groups fewer than 20

only clarify and quantify the direction and magnitude of the achievement gap.

Windsor’s Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Villar, in partnership with a consultant, will lead this process with the following objectives: I. Year One - Provide critical insights into learning, teaching and leadership that impact the change process at Windsor High School (WHS).

The following details the four Phases of the EER: i. Phase 1 - Achievement Analysis: Researchers will analyze school climate surveys, achievement data, graduation and college attendance trends, discipline data, and other critical data points. This data will refine the focus of work done in Phase 2. An executive summary of results will be reported. ii. Phase 2 - Access Analysis: Researchers will use qualitative and quantitative methods including classroom (continued from page 8) (See WINDSOR page 9)

^Ɖ ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝnjŝŶŐ /Ŷ͗ ŶƌŽůůŵĞŶƚ WƌŽũĞĐƟŽŶƐ ^ĐŚŽŽů ZĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƟŶŐ ͬ ZĞĐŽŶĮŐƵƌĂƟŽŶ >ŽŶŐ ZĂŶŐĞ &ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ WůĂŶƐ 'ƌŽǁƚŚ &ŽƌĞĐĂƐƟŶŐ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ŶĂůLJƐŝƐ WƵďůŝĐ KƵƚƌĞĂĐŚ

dŽ ůĞĂƌŶ ŵŽƌĞ ĂďŽƵƚ ŽƵƌ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ ĐŽŶƚĂĐƚ DŝŬĞ ƵďĂ Ăƚ ŵŝŬĞnjΛŵŝůŽŶĞĂŶĚŵĂĐďƌŽŽŵ͘ĐŽŵ

ǁǁǁ͘ŵŝůŽŶĞĂŶĚŵĂĐďƌŽŽŵ͘ĐŽŵ ŽŶŶĞĐƟĐƵƚ Ͳ DĂŝŶĞ Ͳ DĂƐƐĂĐŚƵƐĞƩƐ Ͳ ^ŽƵƚŚ ĂƌŽůŝŶĂ Ͳ sĞƌŵŽŶƚ

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

9

Now More Than Ever... Your District Needs Medicaid Direct

A fully integrated module of IEP Direct that simplifies Medicaid tracking and claiming, enhances compliance, and optimizes reimbursement

With Medicaid Direct, recovering Medicaid funds is less complex and time-consuming. This innovative web-based solution will provide a positive return on investment and benefit your school district by: U Saving time and improving data accuracy U Optimizing and accelerating reimbursement U Enhancing compliance and best practices U Simplifying service tracking and the billing process U Reducing paperwork burden with online documentation by providers U Allowing service providers to enter service encounters online U Providing integration with IEP Direct For a demonstration and information on Medicaid Direct visit IEPDirect.com or call 516.766.4448.

Tel: 516.766.4448 U Fax: 516.766.4896 U www.IEPDirect.com

Windsor: Toward a vision of equity and excellence visits, interviews and focus groups with students, teachers, staff, parents and school leaders. Such an approach is warranted for Windsor High School given persistent performance gaps within and across student groups by race while controlling for social class status. An executive summary of results will be reported. iii. Phase 3 - Advancement Analysis: A cultural responsiveness review of the curriculum and all supporting documents and assessments.

Research is clear that curricula, assessments and teaching methods that are culturally responsive increases engagement and achievement among diverse learners. This review will be critical as WHS infuses common core standards, which like past State standards do not account for cultural aspects of learning. iv. Phase 4 - Action Analysis: Because EER is an action

1.

research approach it requires participation, input and solutions to identified challenges from those directly impacted by the system of schooling. Educators, students and community members will be engaged on a voluntary basis to add insights to the research and solution development processes. The particulars must be developed through on-going conversations at the school level. The final report will contain these approaches and proposals designed by educators and school leaders to redress barriers and strengthen progressive strategies. Proposals will be compared against the reform record of the school/district, so that projects that have yielded poor results in the past are not simply revisited hoping for better results.

Year Two - Redress capacity shortfalls and strengthen progressive strategies that are effective with the infusion of

2.

community, corporate, and familial capital in a process called Community Assets and Resources for Excellent Schools© (C.A.R.E.S.).

Year Three – Build the capacity of the district to apply for external grants, pursue additional corporate partners, and leverage local university partnerships to sustain the community support

structures achieved during the C.A.R.E.S. initiative.

The Board is optimistic that this approach to reforming Windsor Public Schools will strengthen the foundation that will support sustained student achievement and an overall high quality educational experience that our students deserve and our community expects.

5RRÀQJ DQG %XLOGLQJ 6ROXWLRQV Through a partnership with AEPA and CREC, Tremco, a leading innovator and provider of roofing and weatherproofing solutions, delivers unique facility asset management solutions designed to reduce your roofing and building envelope life-cycle costs while improving performance The benefits to buyers include: t A streamlined procurement process t Single-source responsibility: turnkey t Pre-competed line item pricing

t Buying power of a national contract t Shorter project time t Use of “best in class” contractors

For more information, contact Cara Hart at 860-524-4021 or chart@crec.org.

10

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

CABE: Working for YOU!

Individualized Workshops • Professional Development Opportunities • Legal Services • Policy Services • Representing You Statewide and Nationally Below are the highlights of activities that the CABE staff has undertaken on your behalf over the last month and a half. We did this:

• •

➤ By representing Connecticut school boards on the national level: •

Participated in NSBA Council of

•

School Attorneys webinar on school safety.

Hosted and attended “Big 6” Coalition for Public Education meeting.

Attended Electoral College in Hartford at invitation of Secretary of State Denise Merrill.

Participated in DeBeers Clinic discussion on mental health issues in light of Newtown tragedy.

Met with CAPSS, CAS and SDE representatives on professional educator evaluation and support.

Participated in CAPSS’ International Education Committee meeting.

Met with SDE Chief Turnaround Officer Deborah Kushan on working together for out members.

•

➤ By helping school boards

•

•

• •

• • •

to increase student achievement

Interview with Rae Ann Knopf Executive Director CCER (continued from page 1) strongly in having high quality educators around the state. Our board includes such prominent leaders as the President of Travelers Insurance; Ramani Ayer, retired chairman of the Hartford; the previous chairman of the Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement, Steve Simmons; and community leaders like the President of Yale and the Community Foundation of New Haven.

Bob: What would you say are the top priorities of CCER? Rae Ann: Our top priorities are having high expectations for all learners; providing the supports and infrastructure to teachers and principals so that they can provide for those expectations; and focusing on turning around the highest need or lowest performing schools.

Bob: What are business leaders really looking to accomplish?

Rae Ann: They are looking to ensure children are educated to the level that is needed once they graduate and go into the workforce so that they can get jobs by which they can sustain their own families and be a stronger part of the civic and economic community in the State. So, I think business leaders are thinking not only about their own employees and the schools that they have to send their children to but the larger picture.

Bob: Business is often thought of as “anti-tax” in many communities. That puts pressure on the schools, especially when the business community is against increasing taxes for needs that, for instance, the Board of Education may identify. Can you talk about how businesses and schools in individual communities can work better together?

Rae Ann: Well, that’s an excellent question. There’s tremendous opportunity for businesses to work with schools in their communities, and it’s not just a question of money. If business leaders understand what school leaders are trying to do in transforming public education, they can offer other supports, including

public support for their efforts. Also, if they had a better understanding of how the funds are being used, I think they would have a different perspective on the tax rate.

Bob: Do you see CCER and business leaders in it for the long term? That hasn’t always been true of business leaders.

Rae Ann: I do, actually. The members of our board are very committed and know that just changing policy is not enough.

The real challenge is how those changes get implemented at the local levels so they actually end up positively affecting the experiences of students. So, we have a dual charge. We not only support policy improvements or adjustments, but we are also determining how to be a resource and support school and district leaders.

Bob: We have truly enjoyed working with you and CCER over the last year and we really hope that this partnership will continue.

Rae Ann: We do as well. Having these conversations with you and other educational organization leaders is very helpful in informing what we do.

Bob: Last question. Is there anything else you think board members and superintendents should know about CCER? Rae Ann: A couple things I think they should know: If they have more questions about our work, they can go to our website, ctedreform.org. The site was recently redesigned to be more of a resource. They can also stay up-to-date with us by subscribing to our e-news communications at ctedreform.org/stayinformed. I would also like them to know we are really interested in hearing from them about ways that we might get involved in helping to support implementation of reforms in their districts.

Bob: Thank you so much, Rae Ann. Rae Ann: You’re welcome.

•

Sent two issues of Policy Highlights via email listserv covering topics that affect student achievement. This included security and safety issues, retention and promotion and guidelines regarding transgender youth.

➤ By promoting public education: •

• •

Attended Legislative Breakfasts in Danbury (CABE Area 5), Litchfield (CABE Area 1), and Montville (CABE Area 9).

Appeared on Fox News program following the Newtown tragedy.

Answered questions about the current legal issues facing boards of education. “HOT” topics this month were: Hiring of administrators, dual agency agenda posting, special meetings, school security, and fundraising.

Held first meeting of the 2013 CABE/ CAPSS Convention Committee.

Audited the policy manual of the Groton Board of Education.

Placed Region 18 policy manual online.

Entered into contracts with North Haven and Watertown to develop new policy manual for the districts.

Completed as part of the Custom Update Service packets of new and/or revised policies for: Ansonia, Columbia, East Hampton, East Windsor, Franklin, Gilbert School Marlborough, New Fairfield, New Hartford, Newington, North Stonington, Old Saybrook, Oxford, Region 6, Stafford, Sterling, West Haven, Westbrook, and Windham Boards of Educa-tion.

➤ By providing opportunities for members to learn how to better govern their districts:

• •

Facilitated Enfield Board of Education retreat.

Provided policy information to 36 districts, three out-of-state school board associations, CAPSS, one attorney and one newspaper through 50 answered requests for information or sample policies, on 34 topics. The topics of greatest interest included school safety committees, school security, social media and school resource officers.

➤ By providing services to meet members needs: •

•

•

Facilitated discussion of the roles and responsibilities of school governance council in New Britain.

Sponsored and participated in School Security Symposium with CAPSS, CAS, CASBO and SDE and participated in press conference in regard to the Symposium.

Met with representatives of SDE along with other associations and the Center for School Change on a possible Leadership Academy grant.

➤ By ensuring members receive the most up-todate communications: •

•

•

Prepared Custom Policy Service, material were prepared for Columbia, East Windsor, Griswold, Hartford, Region 17, and Windsor Locks.

Made a presentation to the Watertown Board of education on policy issues.

Mailed issue #2 of the Policy Update Service publication.

CABE Board of Directors Retreat

Members of the CABE Board of Directors and staff attended a Board Retreat at the New Haven Lawn Club on January 15. Topics of dicussion were a new Vision Statement and a Communications Plan for the Association.

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

11

CABE and Baldwin Media: Partners in Managing Communications

The

Media Message

from Ann Baldwin, Baldwin Media Marketing, LLC

Testifying before the Legislature – making your voice heard!

With the new legislative session underway at our State Capitol, many of you may have the opportunity to let your opinions on various “issues” be known. Whether you are interested in speaking out on education or any other matter being address-ed by our legislature and regardless of whether you agree or disagree, you have a right to attend any public hearing on any bill!

The purpose of this article is to provide you with pertinent information that will help assure that your voice will be heard. Speaking at a public hearing before the legislature can be an intimidating process, so the more that you are prepared, the better your comfort level will hopefully be. CABE’s Government Relations staff Patrice McCarthy and Sheila McKay, can help you with developing testimony on specific topics.

Preparing Testimony Legislators are interested in knowing the effects of a proposed piece of legis-

lation and, for example, how it may impact education in our state. Therefore, when putting your testimony “talking points” together, it is important that you are clear and concise. Capitol “insiders” suggest that you submit written testimony as well the day of the hearing. Written testimony ensures that committee mem-bers who are not present have the oppor-tunity to read what was said during the public hearing.

Make sure that you find out the number of committee members and that you provide an adequate amount of copies for the hearing clerk to distribute.

Details and Appearance When submitting written testimony, it is important that you include your name, organization affiliation and contact information, as well as the bill number that you are testifying on. Just as if you were going to deliver a speech or speaking to a group of your peers, you want to act and look professional. Your appearance, like it or not, has a lot to do with the impression that you leave with lawmakers.

Leadership who attended last year’s briefing session.

Speaking Order On the morning of the bill hearing, a signup sheet will be provided at the Legislative Office Building. Individuals and lobbyists arrive very early to sign up to speak. The bottom line is that you need to be ready for what is usually a very long day. Often times those that sign up early don’t get called to speak until late in the day or even into the evening. That is why submitting your written testimony to the legislators is crucial. It is also important that, as you sit in the hearing room waiting your turn, you are respectful of those speaking on the bill. Sit quietly and listen to the discussion until your name is called.

It’s Your Turn at the Podium Once your name is called, quietly get up from your seat and take your place at the podium. Take a few seconds to make sure you are comfortable and well positioned behind the microphone. Make sure

to project with your voice and make as much eye contact as possible with the legislators. This will help you with your presentation. Legislative “insiders” and committee members prefer when those testifying don’t read their testimony verbatim. Instead, speak from bullet points.

Turn yourself up, have some passion for what you are speaking about. Try not to repeat points that have already been made by previous presenters. Make eye contact with the legislators that you are speaking to. In almost all of the legislative hearing rooms there are cameras that are often live and rolling on your every move and every word. Often times these hearings are broadcasted live on CTN (Connecticut Television Network) and then rebroadcasted at a later date.

Editorial Note: CABE and Baldwin Media partner to provide media training service sessions through CABE and d elivered by Baldwin Media. For further information, contact Executive Director Robert Rader at 860-571-7446 or rrader@cabe.org

CABE Day on the Hill March 6, 2013 8:30 am The Bushnell, Hartford

Governor Dannel Malloy

Learn About the Issues Representative Larry Cafero

Hear from Legislative Leadership Representataive Andy Fleishmann

Lobby your Legislators

12

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

2012 CABE/CAPSS Convention Recap Lisa Steimer, Senior Staff Associate for Professional Development The 2012 CABE/CAPSS Convention is now behind us and the planning has begun for the 2013 Convention. (See article on page 14) The evaluations of the 2012 Convention are the best we have seen in the recent past, indicating it was a huge success – 95% of respondents to the post-Convention survey said the Convention was “good” or “excellent”.

Thanks to all of you who participated in the Convention! It is your interaction and energy that make this event successful year after year.

The Convention Committee did a good job selecting the General Session speakers. The feedback on their presentations was positive, particularly for Pedro

Noguera our Saturday morning speaker who 96% of respondents said was “good” or “excellent”. Equally as positive was the feedback on the breakout sessions – 92% of survey respondents found them to be “helpful” or “very helpful”.

This is an increase in the percentage of respondents responding so favorably.

The Committee does its best to select the most timely and well developed workshops from the proposals submitted. If you have an interest in presenting a workshop at the 2013 Convention, watch your mail in late January-early February for the Call for Proposal information.

Several respondents brought up holding the Convention on a Thursday and Friday rather than a Friday and Saturday. We have surveyed Convention attendees about this in recent years and

Friday morning General Session.

found that the majority of attendees prefer to attend Friday and Saturday because Saturday sessions still allow the option to attend for those who are unable to get time off from work to attend during the work week.

91% of survey respondents find the Convention location to be “good” or “excellent” which also shows an increase in the percentage of favorable responses.

However, a number of people have asked why the Convention is not held in a more central location or at one of the casinos. Over the past several years, the Convention Committee has devoted time to discussing these very questions.

Convention Site At the Committee’s request, staff has investigated numerous sites throughout the state of Connecticut, only to discover that when strictly looking at space, very few venues in the state of Connecticut are able to accommodate our group. Those venues which have adequate space for us are not necessarily the right “fit” for our group. We have outgrown sites used prior to the Mystic Marriott, namely the Waterbury Holiday Inn (formerly the Sheraton) and the Cromwell Crowne Plaza (formerly the Radisson).

Both CABE and CAPSS have surveyed their memberships about holding the Convention at one of the casinos, only to find what we believed to be true - the majority of both organizations are against moving the Convention to either of the casinos in the state.

This is based on the belief that the public and the media would criticize using public funds to hold a Convention in a casino area and the negative perception of public officials at a gaming facility, albeit the meeting space. In a time when every dollar spent is scrutinized more than ever, we want to protect our members from unnecessary criticism.

While the Connecticut Convention Center is centrally located, we heard a number of concerns from participants in the two years we were there. The Convention Center is not available to us for the next several years due to previous bookings. The Committee would like the Convention to be more centrally located, but currently there is no adequate space available.

While at times crowded, we are the only group in the hotel and “take over” all the meeting space at the Marriott. This allows all of us the opportunity to run into one another during the course of the Convention. If we were in a larger facility or shared space with another group, this opportunity would be greatly diminished.

We all recognize that the current space is not 100% ideal, but it provides the best possible solution to a good problem – too many people for the given space.

Keep your feedback coming - it enables us to continually tweak the Convention in order to best meet the needs of the CABE and CAPSS memberships.

Be sure to mark your calendar for the 2013 Convention – November 15-16. We hope to see you then!

Legal Highlights – Referendum Tips Kelly B. Moyher Senior Staff Attorney, CABD

Editor’s Note: The State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) has upheld the prohibition against any expenditure of public funds to advocate a referendum once a referendum is “pending”. Even though the date of the referendum may be known, it is only considered to be “pending” when the muncipal body has approved the question to be presented to voters.

Boards of Education often have questions about the ability to disseminate information to the public when a referendum on the budget or a school construction project is pending. The following are among the most frequently asked questions.

• Can school district staff and board members advocate for passage of the referendum at public meetings, civic groups, and churches after the referendum date is set?

Yes. Municipal officials and employees retain their right to speak freely on these matters once the referendum date is set so long as no municipal resources are used to convey the advocacy message. Accordingly, these officials and employees may speak freely on their own time (time for which that they are not compensated by the municipality). They also may write letters to the editor of newspapers using their official titles. If the public meeting at which the advocacy occurs is conducted in a municipally funded

facility, then groups that desire to use the facility to advocate their opposing viewpoint on the referendum must be treated on the same terms.

• What information can be distributed before a referendum is set?

Before a referendum is scheduled or anytime during the year when no referendum has been officially set, a board of education, PTAs, PTOs, Administrators, and Superintendents can distribute information on: • Budget priorities • Rationale for new initiatives • Budget proposals • The need for construction projects • What restrictions are there on students and PTAs/PTOs when a referendum date has been set?

Students may not be used as couriers of information that advocates a position on a referendum. A notice indicating the time, place and question to be voted upon may be sent home with students.

Boards, PTAs, PTOs, board members, administrators and others may not use school equipment and supplies to advocate a position on a referendum.

• Can architectural drawings remain on display once the referendum date is set?

Yes. The continuing display of such drawings would not trigger the procedural requirement of the legisla-

tive body of the municipality to approve the display. If the drawings are included in printed materials that contain other information concerning the referendum, then the legislative body would have to authorize its printing and dissemination and such accompanying information could not advocate the passage of the referendum.

• If the superintendent or his/her young child prepares a power point presentation on their home computer, which includes both factual information as well as advocates for the passage of the referendum, can the superintendent use that power point presentation when making public speeches after the referendum date is set?

Yes. Municipal officials, such as the superintendent, can spend their own money and time advocating for the referendum as long as no municipally funded resources are used for advocacy. The superintendent may make the power point presentation to groups such as area chambers of commerce and PTA/PTO groups after the normal workday to ensure that no municipal expenditures are made for advocacy prohibited by § 9-369b of the General Statues.

• Can the superintendent use a power point presentation prepared by school district staff that contains architectural renderings, information on the cost of the project, state reimburse-

ment information and data on population growth in the community after the referendum date is set?

Yes, provided the information does not advocate passage of the referendum. If the power point presentation is reproduced and disseminated in printed form, the legislative body would have to authorize its distribution as it would any other form of printed material disseminated after the referendum date is set.

• Can the board of education website continue to contain a link to the PTA or PTO website after the referendum date is set, even if the linked site advocates adoption of the referendum?

Yes. A mere link to the PTA or PTO website that has a prior existence apart from the referendum would not result in a municipal expenditure for the purpose of advocating a referendum.

• May board members, superintendents, teachers and other municipal employees participate in political committees that advocate positions on pending referenda?

Absolutely. Again, these officials do not lose their right to associate with others for advocacy purposes. Political committees must use private (not public) resources to advocate their positions on referenda. Municipal officials may contribute their own time and money to any such political committee that is registered with the town clerk of the municipality.

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

13

Obligation to Pay Preschool Magnet School Tuition in Light of Regional School District 10 et al. v. State of Connecticut Department of Education and the December 2012 Deficit Mitigation Legislation: The “Ups and Downs” Mark J. Sommaruga, Esq., and Zachary D. Schurin, Esq., Sullivan, Schoen, Campane & Connon, LLC

The issue of whether Connecticut school districts are obligated to pay the tuition costs of local resident students that attend preschool magnet schools has recently come to the legal forefront.

There are two developments that your district should be aware of. First, on August 6, 2012, a hearing officer appointed by the State Department of Education issued a declaratory ruling that held that under Connecticut law, school districts could not be legally required to pay preschool magnet school tuition.

This decision was a major win for local and regional school districts since it effectively eliminated the unfunded state mandate of requiring local and regional school districts to pick up the tab for preschool magnet school tuition. More recently however, on December 19, 2012, the General Assembly opted to re-legislate the issue by including statutory language in a deficit mitigation bill that attempts to put the burden of preschool magnet school tuition squarely back on the shoulders of local and regional boards of education.

As the 2013 session of the General Assembly now marches on, and as legislators sift through the rubble of the deficit mitigation bill, we are all left wondering what will happen next.

Background The key legal issue to understand in terms of the preschool magnet tuition issue is that while local and regional school districts are required to provide preschool services to students requiring special education and related services, such school districts are generally not responsible under Connecticut law for educating non-special education preschool students.

Numerous magnet schools offer preschool programs, and the State Department of Education, via its Memorandum/Notice concerning “Sheff v.

O’Neil Stipulation Funding” dated July 1, 2008, determined that school districts were responsible for paying for the tuition of preschool students attending magnet school programs, regardless of whether the school district regularly provides preschool services to its own students.

Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regional School District No. 10, along with Newington, Ellington, New Hartford, Barkhamsted and Regional School District No. 16, petitioned the State Department of Education to issue a

declaratory ruling in order to challenge the State’s edict with regard to their obligation to pay for magnet school tuition for preschool magnet school programs.

These same school districts also sought to challenge the State’s pronouncement (via an April 10, 2011 “Circular Letter” from the then-Acting Commissioner of Education) that school districts would no longer be permitted to charge back to parents any portion of the tuition costs associated with part-time magnet high school programs.

The State Board of Education agreed to rule on the matter, and appointed an impartial hearing officer. After a hearing on the merits, the hearing officer (Attorney Ann Bird) issued her decision.

The hearing officer found that the Connecticut statutes governing interdistrict magnet schools require sending school districts to support and pay the entire tuition for resident students attending part-time (non-preschool) magnet school programs, as long as those programs require students to attend at least 450 hours per school year.

However, the hearing officer also found that these same laws do not require sending school districts to support and pay tuition for resident students attending magnet preschool programs.

With respect to the magnet preschool issue, the hearing officer concluded that under the laws governing magnet schools, local and regional school districts cannot be obligated to pay tuition for students they are not “otherwise responsible” for educating.

Accordingly, the hearing officer reasoned that since, pursuant to Connecticut law, local and regional school districts are generally not responsible for educating non-special education pre-

school students, they cannot be held responsible for magnet preschool tuition if parents choose to enroll their children in magnet preschool.

At its September 5, 2012 meeting the State Board of Education voted to adopt the hearing officer’s decision. By virtue of this action by the State Board, Connecticut school districts would have been relieved of their obligation to pay tuition on behalf of resident children who elect to attend preschool magnet school programs.

During the meeting, State Department of Education Commissioner Stefan Pryor stated that the State would cover the estimated $3-4 million resulting funding shortfall for magnet preschool programs for the 2012-13 school year.

Not so fast: The Legislature Acts On December 19, 2012, the General Assembly passed Governor Malloy’s interim deficit mitigation plan to address the State’s estimated $365 million budget shortfall for the 2012-13 fiscal year.

Included in the legislation were amendments to Connecticut’s magnet school funding statutes, which sought to directly reverse the effects of the declaratory ruling (and to relieve the State from its September commitment to pay the tuition costs for magnet preschools).

Specifically, Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the deficit mitigation bill (Public Act 12-1, December 2012 Special Session) amend the inter-district magnet school statutes by including specific references to magnet preschool programs. In their amended form, the statutes now seem to provide that local and regional boards of education must pay tuition for magnet preschool programs (or suffer a correspond-

CABE-Meeting CABE-Meeting is a user-friendly, web-based service specifically designed to assist the board, superintendent and central office staff in preparing for and running board of education meetings.

An exciting feature designed for use by committees, in addtion to boards of education, was recently added to CABE-Meeting. Now all your board work and committee information is conveniently located in one place!

“CABE-Meeting has been a great program for our district. We have saved time and money and increased our ability to disseminate information quickly. I encourage Board members to consider the advantages of CABE-Meeting.”

Becky Tyrrell, Member, Plainville Board of Education For more information, or to schedule a demonstration for your board, call Lisa Steimer at 800-317-0033 or 860-571-7446 or email lsteimer@cabe.org.

ing reduction in ECS grant funding).

Sections 11, 12 and 13 became effective upon the Act’s passage, so the State may argue that magnet preschool tuition payments must be made in the current fiscal year.

While the State will likely take the position that local and regional boards of education are once again legally obligated to pay the tuition costs of resident preschool magnet school students, there is some reason to believe that the Act still fails to legally mandate board of education responsibility for magnet preschool tuition.

In addition to the fact that Public Act 12-1 did not address all of the language in the statutes relied upon by the hearing officer in her decision in the declaratory ruling, state law prohibits the imposition of any state mandate on any political subdivision of the State which requires the appropriation of funds until the succeeding fiscal year. See Connecticut General Statutes §2-32a.

Pursuant to this statute, school districts may be able to argue that any obligation for local and regional school districts to pay for preschool magnet school tuition cannot take effect until the 2013-14 fiscal year. Consequently, the legal consequences of the General Assembly’s actions still remain somewhat cloudy.

Where do we go from here?

Without as much as a single public hearing or floor debate on the issue, the General Assembly has imposed a new financial burden on local and regional school districts. While several legislators have indicated that they did not realize the magnet preschool tuition consequences of voting for the deficit mitigation bill, Public Act 12-1 is now law.

Notwithstanding this fact, as of the writing of this article, at least a half-dozen bills have been proposed during the 2013 session of the General Assembly to repeal the imposition of the obligation upon school districts to pay preschool magnet school tuition. Stay tuned; hopefully, this latest unfunded mandate will disappear and school districts will be granted some much needed fiscal relief.

Attorney Sommaruga and Attorney Schurin are members of the law firm of Sullivan, Schoen, Campane & Connon, LLC of Hartford, Connecticut, which represents numerous school boards in Connecticut. The attorneys represented the interests of Region 10 and the other petitioning school districts in the abovereferenced case. In addition, Attorney Sommaruga with Attorney Schurin presented on the topic of magnet schools at the recent CABE/CAPSS Convention.

14

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

The planning has begun: CABE Legislative Breakfasts at the Legislative Breakfasts were legislators, board members, 2013 CABE/CAPSS Convention Gathered superintendents and other education leaders who shared their district It is not too early to be thinking about the 2013 CABE/CAPSS Convention which will be held November 15-16. The Convention Committee met in early January to begin planning this annual event. They determined the theme of the 2013 Convention to be Keeping Focus on Student Growth in a Time of Rapid Change.

Supporting the theme are four strands under which breakout sessions will fall.

They are: Reform, Effective Boardsmanship, Executive Leadership, Safety/ Security, and Student Growth.

A Call for Proposal will be mailed to solicit workshop proposals for the Convention. Call for Proposal information will also be available at www.cabe.org. If you are interested in submitting a proposal for consideration by the Committee, please note the deadline is Friday, March 8.

Information for Student Performers and the Talented Student Display was also

mailed in early February. Talented Student information is also available at www.cabe. org. If you are interested in entering your students, please complete the entry form and return to CABE with necessary supporting materials. Now is your chance to brag about the talented students in your district!

Be sure to mark your calendar – we look forward to seeing you at the 2013 CABE/CAPSS Convention on November 15-16!

If you are interested in joining the CABE/CAPSS Convention Committee or have Convention breakout session ideas, please contact Lisa Steimer at lsteimer@ cabe.org.

Watch future issues of the CABE Journal for the most up-to-date Convention news.

Lisa Steimer, Senior Staff Associate

concerns with their local legislators.

January 14 Legislative Breakfast held at Education Connecticut in Litchfield and sponsored by CABE Area 1 Co-Directors Susan Hoffnagel (Winchester), MariEllen Valyo (Winchester) and Daniel Santorso (Plymouth).

for Professional Development

January 11 Legislative Breakfast held at Education Connection in Danbury and sponsored by CABE, Education Connecticut and the Western Area Superintendents.

January meeting of the CABE/CAPSS Convention Committee.

CABE Search Services is recruiting for SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Amity Region No. 5 Public Schools For an update or more information on vacancies go to our website: www.cabe.org For more information contact, CABE Search Services, Jacqueline V. Jacoby • 860-539-7594 Mary Broderick • 860-739-7866 Paul Gagliarducci • 413-218-5692 Bob King • 203-461-0388 P.O. Box 290252, Wethersfield, CT 06129-0252 www.cabe.org/support • Equal Opportunity Employers

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

15

New rules for communicating when connected 24/7 Nicholas D. Caruso Jr. Senior Staff Associate for Field Services and Coordinator of Technology

Editor’s Note: Originally printed in School Administrator Magazine, but modified to make it more appropriate for board of education members.

A student is sent back to school on a Friday afternoon because of fighting on the bus. The driver drops him off before completing his route. It is raining and staff has left for the day. The building is locked. The student gets wet. The parents are upset. The superintendent first hears about it when a TV news crew shows up at her front door that evening looking for an interview for the 11 o’clock news. The parents never bothered to contact a school official — they immediately called the TV station.

Elsewhere, your superintendent has received information that a teacher may have sold illegal substances, and begins to investigate. Unfortunately, the word is out and before he can even make a phone call, the news is plastered over Facebook and Twitter. Concerned parents call him and, more importantly, they contact school board members. Your first phone call is to the superintendent, wondering

why you haven’t heard anything about this.

These cases, both based on actual circumstances, illustrate how information technology dramatically affects communication between the board, the superintendent and the community.

Traditionally, board members expect the superintendent to act on a rumor or serious complaint, assess the situation and correct it long before it showed up on page one of the local newspaper.

But doing that has become much harder. The cardinal rule for boards and superintendents hasn’t changed: No surprises! The explosion of social media, notably Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, means your superintendent no longer has the luxury of time. It’s more likely the board will hear about a problem outside the chain of command.

The board and superintendent should have a conversation about what is reasonable in these changing times. Discuss the issue pre-emptively. There ought to be clear expectations and boundaries, as well as an understanding that some things will happen too quickly to react as prescribed.

Board members encountering something for the first time on Facebook or

Twitter need to understand that your superintendent may not be aware of it or even if it’s true. Board members and staff who forward information they glean from social networking sites to the superintendent, must realize it may be a rumor or innuendo.

Acting Hastily One important thing to be agreed upon: In no way do you want your administration to act too quickly or to overreact.

In earlier days, we had time to process, to review the issue, analyze it and develop a solution that was thoughtful and effective; often before a reporter got wind of the situation, allowing us to state honestly, “We had a problem, and we fixed it.”

Now it is entirely possible a reporter knows more about a situation than your administration does, thanks to social media.

The pressure to reach a solution may be greater, but it is important to allow your superintendent to do his or her due diligence to ensure the solution is a good one, particularly if a staff member is involved. Taking action in haste can put the district at risk of legal liability.

You also might consider talking to a

media consultant to help work through a problem. CABE has a relationship with such a consultant who is available whenever a sticky situation arises.

Private Time Probably the most difficult task is understanding that your superintendent needs to be able to disconnect from all aspects of work when he or she has time off. With the explosion of electronic media, we all suffer from information overload, and our downtime often is not appreciated for what it is — a time to recharge and get away from the daily hustle-bustle of our work.

One superintendent I know shuts his Blackberry off on Friday evening and doesn’t turn it back on until Monday morning. He doesn’t check e-mail and his staff knows to contact him at home only in an emergency. His school board chair has his home phone number, along with an understanding he will call only if the issue can’t wait until Monday. This obviously resulted from a conversation with his board detailing the expectations of everyone involved.

I suggest you have a similar conversation with your superintendent.

CT Pupils Eligible for Free/Reduced Price Lunch

Organization Name

School Year

Number Eligible for Free/ Reduced Price Lunch

Total Enrollment

Percent Eligible for Free/ Reduced Lunch

State

2010-11

191,116

556,184

34.4

State

2009-10

184,889

562659

32.9

State

2008-09

170,834

563,195

30.3

State

2007-08

162,518

570494

28.5

State

2006-07

155,841

574,749

27.1

State

2005-06

153,808

576,772

26.7

State

2004-05

152,477

577,398

26.4

Source: CT Department of Education

CT High School Graduation Rates Organization Name

Class Of

Total Graduates

Graduation Rate

State

2008

38,419

92.1

State

2007

37,551

92.6

State

2006

36,222

92.1

State

2005

35,480

91.2

State

2004

34,544

89.8

Source: CT Department of Education

Does your policy manual LOOK LIKE THIS? Then you are the perfect candidate for the

CABE Customized Policy Service!

CABE’s Customized Policy Service tailors a policy manual for a subscribing board of education that reflects the specific needs and priorities of that community.

The service includes: • Review and analysis of existing policies for relevancy and compliance with federal and state statutes and regulations.

• Review of current contracts and student and personnel handbooks for explicit and implied policies.

• On-site consultation for school board members and school administrators by CABE staff.

• Update of existing policies • Legal referencing of policies: Connecticut and U.S. statutes Federal/state court decisions • Development of needed policies and regulations.

• Use of CABE Codification System • Printing of policies and arrangement in manual.

• Manual on CD Fee is based on school district enrollment. For more information contact Vincent Mustaro at CABE 860-571-7446 or 800-317-0033. You can also email Policy Services at vmustaro@cabe.org.

16

The Journal

– Connecticut Association of Boards of Education • February 2013

REPRESENTING CONNECTICUT SCHOOL BOARDS FOR MORE THAN 35 YEARS THE LAW FIRM OF

SULLIVAN, SCHOEN, CAMPANE & CONNON, LLC With over thirty five years experience providing legal representation to Connecticut’s public school districts, Sullivan, Schoen has set the standard for public sector collective bargaining, has created an unparalleled body of case law favorable to school boards, and has established a proactive partnership with its clients to develop policies and practices that anticipate the law’s ever-evolving demands. Call us and see how we can help you.

646 Prospect Avenue Hartford, CT 06105-4286 Phone: 860-233-2141 Fax: 860-233-0516 William R. Connon, Partner

Website: sscc-law.com