We are living in a time when our nation’s societal unrest has spilled into our schools. We’ve learned in recent years that issues, especially those that spring from the areas of race, gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, and religion can be uncomfortable and difficult to address. Many school boards have spent considerable time developing or updating their equity policies and school districts have hired personnel or established committees to handle these issues. However, parents continue to use school board meetings to voice their opinions and objections to the inclusion of certain books about race, or family lifestyle choices that are available in their classroom libraries, decorations in classrooms that are intended to foster a sense of belonging and creating a safe space for all students, and curricular topics that fall under the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) umbrella.
The good news is that boards have
See LISTENING page 13
Findings of the Task Force to Study Special Education Services and Funding
The Task Force to Study Special Education Services and Funding recently released their findings, in preparation for developing recommendations by January 2025.
CABE/CAPSS Convention Committee Announces Saturday Morning General Session Speaker
Lisa Steimer
Deputy Executive Director, CABE
The CABE/CAPSS Convention Committee is delighted to announce that Beth Morning Deer Regan will be the Saturday morning General Session speaker. Beth Regan was elected to the Mohegan Council of Elders in 2014, appointed Secretary in 2016, and Vice Chairwoman in 2020.
Beth Morning Deer
Beth brings an extensive background in both education and athletics to her role on the Council of Elders. With a career spanning over 35 years as a teacher at Tolland High School, she specialized in both Native American studies and Russian history, creating courses in both subjects. An integral part of the Mohegan Tribe’s partnership with the Connecticut Teacher of the Year Program, Beth has created curriculum and lessons on Mohegan history and culture for Connecticut teachers of all grade levels to incorporate
See SATURDAY SPEAKER page 6
Patrice McCarthy represents CABE on the 23 member Task Force to study issues relating to special education, including providing special education services, the cost of special education and the annual percentage increase or decrease per school district, how special education costs affect a district’s minimum budget requirement, state special education reimbursement to boards of education, overidentification and underidentification of students for special education services, and services to gifted and talented students.
The Task Force divided into three working groups: Eligibility, chaired by Aimee Turner, Finance, chaired by Patrice McCarthy, and Services, chaired by Alicia Bowman. Each
We are pleased to announce those school board members who earned the Certificated Board of Education Member levels in 2023-2024.
To achieve the Certificated Board of Education (CBEM) level of CABE’s Board Member Academy, a board member must accumulate at least 20 credits, earned by participating in CABE programs. Core areas addressed in earning the CBEM are board relations with the superintendent, with the community and with each other; policy; curriculum; school finance; school law; labor relations, and board operations.
Those earning the Certificated level are:
Anthony Perugini, Cheshire
Eugene Marchand, Coventry
Jennifer Jacobsen, Fairfield
Seth Klaskin, Madison
Jeff Litke, Naugatuck
Laurel Steinhauser, Portland
Judy Benson Clarke, Region 8
Marion Manzo, Region 15
Anne Kirkpatrick, Somers
Juanita Hernandez, Waterbury
Ayana Taylor, Windsor
The next level is the Master Board of Education Member (MBEM) level, which builds on the basics of the Certificated Board of Education Member program. To earn the MBEM, members must have earned the Certificated Board of Education Member level and
Our Principal Is on the Bus with Us! (Wallingford Public Schools)
Lisa Steimer Deputy Executive Director, CABE
Dr. Martha C. Brackeen-Harris DEI Consultant, CABE
Regan
Embracing AI in Public Education
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is starting to play a significant role in public education across the U.S., including Connecticut. My roles with Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE) and National School Boards Association (NSBA) afford me professional development and engagement with school board members. I’m no expert in AI but will share what I have learned through meetings and networking. The integration of AI in public education is being explored in areas such as personalized learning, administrative efficiency, and student support systems. Below are some ways AI is influencing public education.
Personalized Learning: AI-powered platforms are being used to tailor learning experiences to individual students’ needs. In Connecticut, schools are beginning to experiment with AI tools that adapt lessons based on a student’s learning pace, style, and progress. This allows for more personalized education that can cater to students who may need additional help or advanced learning opportunities.
Teacher Support: AI is helping teachers manage administrative tasks more efficiently, such as grading, tracking student performance, and developing tailored lesson plans. This frees up time for educators to focus on more impactful tasks like one-on-one student interaction and instructional strategies.
Virtual Tutoring and Assistance: Some schools are exploring AI-driven tutoring systems that provide real-time academic support outside the classroom. These tools can offer 24/7 assistance for students, helping them with homework or preparing for exams, often using natural language processing and adaptive learning techniques.
Data-Driven Decision Making: AI tools help school districts analyze data to make informed decisions regarding resource allocation, curriculum development, and student performance. In Connecticut, these systems are increasingly being used to identify trends, gaps in learning, and opportunities for improving school performance overall.
Special Education: AI is being
used to assist students with special needs by providing adaptive learning tools and assistive technologies. In Connecticut, this includes software that helps students with speech impairments, learning disabilities, or physical challenges to better access and engage with the curriculum.
Challenges and Ethical Considerations: The use of AI in public education in Connecticut, like elsewhere, faces several challenges. These include issues of data privacy, digital equity (ensuring all students have access to technology), and the need for teacher training to effectively use AI tools. Additionally, there’s a debate over how much AI should be involved in education, with concerns about reducing human interaction and the potential for biased algorithms.
Pilot Programs and Collaborations: Several districts in Connecticut are involved in pilot programs that introduce AI tools in the classroom, often in partnership with universities, tech companies, or education consortia. These programs aim to explore the benefits and drawbacks of AI in real educational settings before broader implementation. The integration of AI in public education in Connecticut is still in its early stages, but it holds significant potential to enhance learning outcomes, improve teacher efficiency, and provide students with more personalized educational experiences. However, careful consideration of ethical and practical issues will be crucial as the state continues to explore this technology.
Many boards of education are increasingly recognizing the potential of AI to transform learning, improve administrative efficiency, and enhance educational outcomes. Here are some of the ways we can support AI integration as board members:
Curriculum Development: Many boards of education encourage the inclusion of AI in school curricula, teaching students basic AI concepts, coding, and data analysis. For example, countries like the U.S., Canada, and Singapore have begun integrating AI-focused subjects at various levels of education.
Personalized Learning: AI-powered tools can personalize learning
experiences for students by adapting to their unique needs, learning paces, and interests. Boards of education support AI-driven platforms that help teachers create customized learning pathways and offer targeted support.
Administrative Support: AI is also helping streamline administrative tasks, such as student enrollment, grading, and managing schedules. Boards of education are backing the adoption of AI-based management systems to reduce teachers’ workloads and increase efficiency.
Professional Development for Teachers: Boards are providing training and resources to help teachers understand and effectively use AI tools in the classroom. This ensures educators are equipped to integrate AI into their teaching strategies.
Improved Decision-Making: AI can assist in data-driven decision-making, helping boards analyze trends in student performance, attendance, and other key metrics to implement more effective policies.
Ethical Guidelines and Frameworks: Boards are also establishing ethical guidelines and frameworks to ensure AI is used responsibly in schools, focusing on issues like student privacy, bias, and data security. By supporting these initiatives, boards of education aim to modernize learning environments and prepare students for an AI-driven future.
By investing in these areas, boards of education are helping to modernize classrooms, equip teachers and students with the necessary skills to navigate AI, and create equitable access to cutting-edge learning technologies. Remember, as board members, we are growing as we learn. Support of this cutting-edge technology is yet another request for funding. This may present an opportunity to truly assess what’s working and not working within your district in conjunction with your superintendent.
Mission: To assist local and regional boards of education in providing high quality education for all Connecticut children through effective leadership.
Vision: CABE is passionate about strengthening public education through high-performing, transformative local school board/ superintendent leadership teams that inspire success for each child.
Board of Directors
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Leonard Lockhart | President, Windsor
Meg Scata | First Vice President, Portland
Lon Seidman | Vice President for Government Relations, Essex
Eileen Baker | Vice President for Professional Development, Old Saybrook
Anthony Perugini | Secretary/Treasurer, Cheshire
Elizabeth Brown | Immediate Past President, Waterbury
Lydia Tedone | NSBA Director, Simsbury
Ethel Grant | Member at Large, Naugatuck
AREA DIRECTORS
Marion Manzo | Area 1 Co-Director, Region 15
Thomas van Stone | Area 1 Co-Director, Waterbury
Jennifer Hockenhull | Area 2 Co-Director, Hartford
Tyron Harris | Area 2 Co-Director, East Hartford
Karen Colt | Area 3 Co-Director, Vernon
Sara Kelley | Area 3 Co-Director, Stafford
Chris Stewart | Area 4 Co-Director, Putnam
Ailla Wasstrom-Evans | Area 4 Co-Director, Brooklyn
Chris Gilson | Area 5 Co-Director, Newtown
Tina Malhotra | Area 5 Co-Director, Ridgefield
Lee Goldstein | Area 6 Co-Director, Westport
Jill McCammon | Area 6 Co-Director, Darien
John Hatfield | Area 7 Co-Director, Seymour
Melissa Mongillo | Area 7 Co-Director, Derby
Edward Strumello | Area 7 Co-Director, Seymour Lindsay Dahlheimer | Area 8 Co-Director, Region 13 Seth Klaskin | Area 8 Co-Director, Madison Kim Walker | Area 8 Co-Director, Westbrook
ASSOCIATES
Julia Dennis | Associate, Berlin
Jaime Barr Shelburn | Associate, East Lyme
Ethel Grant | Associate, Naugatuck Becky Tyrrell | Associate, Plainville
COMMITTEE CHAIRS
Lee Goldstein | Chair, Federal Relations, Westport
Steinhauser | Chair, Resolutions, Portland
Dahlheimer | Chair, State Relations, Region 13
CITY REPRESENTATIVES Christina Baptiste-Perez | City Representative, Bridgeport
Deristel-Leger | City Representative, Hartford
Rivera | City Representative, New Haven
Koc | City Representative, Stamford
Leonard Lockhart President, CABE
CABE
Affiliate Members
BUSINESS AFFILIATES
VALEDICTORIAN
Connecticut Business Systems –
A Xerox Company
Finalsite
SALUTATORIAN
Berchem Moses PC
Pullman & Comley
Shipman & Goodwin
HONOR ROLL
JCJ Architecture
Kainen, Escalera & McHale, P.C.
Newman/DLR Group
Solect Energy
SCHOLAR
Brown & Brown
Chinni & Associates, LLC
Coordinated Transportation Solutions Dattco, Inc.
ESS
Franklin Covey
GWWO Architects
The Lexington Group
Perkins Eastman
The S/L/A/M Collaborative Zangari Cohn Cuthbertson
Duhl & Grello, P.C.
EDUCATIONAL AFFILIATES
American School for the Deaf Area Cooperative Educational Services (ACES) Booker T. Washington Academy
Cambridge International
Capitol Region Education Council (CREC)
Connecticut Alliance of YMCAs Connecticut Arts
Administrators Association
Connecticut Association for Adult and Continuing Education (CAACE)
Connecticut Association of School Business Officials (CASBO)
Connecticut School Buildings and Grounds Association (CSBGA)
Connecticut Technical High Schools
Cooperative Educational Services (C.E.S.)
EASTCONN
EdAdvance
Explorations Charter School
Great Oaks Charter School
Integrated Day Charter School
ISAAC
LEARN
New England Science & Sailing Foundation
Odyssey Community School, Inc.
The Bridge Academy
Out of Our Public Schools Grows the Greatness of a Nation
Patrice McCarthy Executive Director & General Counsel, CABE
I know this is a very challenging time for board members and superintendents. Supporting students with academic as well as social and emotional needs exacerbated by the pandemic, budget constraints as federal COVID funds end, and a divisive tone in many conversations can seem overwhelming. However, when I look back at major education initiatives, many from the federal level, it is clear that public education has a long history of meeting challenges successfully.
In 1983 the “A Nation at Risk” report asserted that American schools were failing. The report was issued shortly after I began my career at CABE, and sparked a series of reform efforts at the local, state and federal levels. The report advocated for standardized tests, higher college admissions requirements, and evaluation of educator preparation and pay to stem “a rising tide of mediocracy that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people”. It is important to note that the report deemphasized some facts, such as more students than ever were graduating from high school and attending college.
In 2002, the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated state and local accountability plans as a condition of receiving Title
BOARD MEMBERS
(continued from page 1)
20 additional credits in core areas that include leadership, effective meetings, school/community relations, strategic planning, group dynamics, board member ethics, school finance, labor relations, and school law.
Congratulations to all!
To learn more about the CABE Board Member Academy, please go to https://www.cabe.org/professional-development/board-member-academy or contact Lisa Steimer at lsteimer@cabe. org
1 funds. The Act established an accountability system that required states and local districts to (1) have academic standards, (2) make annual progress towards having every student achieve the standards and closing gaps between all students and certain subgroups of students, (3) test students to see if they are learning, and (4) collect data on how they are doing. The law also required states to identify schools and school districts that are not making enough progress and follow a step-by-step process for either turning those schools around or closing them. The NCLB law required that each state adopt challenging content and achievement standards in math, reading or language arts, and science to be used to carry out the law’s assessment and school improvement requirements.
In 2009, Race to the Top (RTTT) created a competitive grant program to provide monetary incentives to states for education reforms. Congress provided $4.35 billion for RTTT in four areas: (1) enhancing standards and assessments, (2) improving collection and use of data, (3) increasing teacher effectiveness and achieving equity in teacher distribution, and (4) turning around low-achieving schools. The Race to
the Top grant required a state that received a grant to promise to adopt and use common K-12 standards for what students know and are able to do, sparking the debate over Common Core State Standards.
Throughout all these initiatives, Connecticut’s 1400 volunteer school board members remained focused on student needs. They developed and advocated for budgets, adopted policies, and engaged in professional development to become effective governance teams with their superintendents. In Connecticut, we now have a streamlined educator evaluation and support system, greater recognition of the social and emotional needs of students, a reduction in the frequency of professional development requirements, and expanded access to educational technology. Board members and superintendents model the resilience and perseverance we want for our students. You do so because, as in the words of Mark Twain “Out of our public schools grows the greatness of a nation”.
October 16, 2024 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. 8:30 a.m.
See You in Court – The Nutmeg Board of Education
The Nutmeg Board, First Amendment and FOIA
Thomas B. Mooney, Esq. Shipman & Goodwin
The Nutmeg Board of Education makes many mistakes. The latest imbroglio created by the board will be reported here each issue, followed by an explanation of what the board should have done. Though not intended as legal advice, these situations may help board members avoid common problems.
The Nutmeg Board of Education includes “Audience to Visitors” on its agenda, a long-established opportunity for people to speak directly to the Board members at the beginning of their meetings. The rules for public comment in Nutmeg provide that speakers must sign up to speak before the meeting starts, that they may speak for up to three minutes, and that they may not criticize district employees.
For many years, speakers at Board meetings have followed these rules, and the Board members have dutifully taken their lumps as members of the public have criticized various Board decisions. Recently, however, speakers have become increasingly disrespectful of the Board and its rules. The last meeting was a good example.
Public comment at that meeting started with a parent who was upset that the football coach was not giving his son enough playing time. “Coach Rock has his head up his ass. No wonder the Nutmeg Knights lose so many games. He should give my son a chance!”
Ms. Chairperson cautioned the speaker against being vulgar, and she then recognized the next speaker. It did not go better.
“You people!” the next speaker started. “What are you doing? Do you ever visit the schools you supposedly oversee? My son brought home a book from the library, and it was full of sex talk. Let me read you a few choice examples . . . .”
“Point of order!” veteran Board member Bob Bombast shouted. “The speaker will be out of order if he reads vulgar passages from books that we may have in the school library!”
The speaker started to respond, but Ms. Chairperson promptly ruled him out of order, and recognized the next speaker. Surprisingly, this speaker did not criticize the Board at all. Rather, the speaker went on a rant about the federal deficit, citing statistic after statistic about the cost of debt
service. As the speaker droned on, Ms. Chairperson warned him that he should wrap up because his three minutes was almost over, but the speaker did not acknowledge the warning and kept speaking. At the four-minute mark, Bob Bombast raised a new point of order, objecting to the speaker’s violation of the rules. Ms. Chairperson ruled the speaker out of order, but the speaker kept going despite Ms. Chairperson’s repeatedly ruling him out of order in an increasingly loud tone. Finally, in desperation Ms. Chairperson called for a recess, and asked all the Board members to get up and leave the Board table.
When the Board members did just that, the speaker finally stopped talking, and after a five-minute break, Ms. Chairperson called the meeting back to order. “That’s it for Audience to Visitors for today,” she said. “Let’s move on with our agenda!”
Before the Board could resume its business, however, Bob Bombast interrupted for the third time. “Point of order! I move that the last speaker be prohibited from ever speaking during public comment. I have never seen such contempt for the Board’s rules!”
Board member Mal Content chimed in. “I rarely agree with anything Bob says, but he’s right! We cannot tolerate such disrespect! I second Bob’s motion.”
Ms. Chairperson responded, “I am just as annoyed as the rest of you. But the prohibition you two are proposing is not on the agenda. Besides, maybe we are just better off if we just end the Audience to Visitors altogether. People can just email us instead.
Is the Nutmeg Board of Education permitted to end opportunity for public comment?
Boards of education have no legal obligation to provide for public comment at their meetings. However, rather than ending this practice, the Nutmeg Board of Education can take less drastic action as long as it respects the constitutional rights of the speakers.
When boards of education provide for public comment at their meetings, they are creating a forum for speech that is subject to the protections of the First Amendment. The key to those protections is that the government cannot discriminate against a speaker on the basis of the viewpoint he or she is expressing. However, reasonable
time, place and manner restrictions on speech by governmental entities are permissible.
The limitation of three minutes for each speaker is an example of a reasonable restriction as to time of speech. However, even this common restriction can give rise to constitutional concerns. Given the prohibition against viewpoint discrimination in a public forum, boards of education must be careful to be evenhanded in enforcing this restriction, and they must enforce the rule against the “friendly” speaker as it would against the critic.
Reasonable restrictions as to the manner of speech are also permitted, and under Robert’s Rules of Order a speaker who is being vulgar, engaging in personal attacks, or is shouting is out of order. The parent who was concerned about his son’s playing time was vulgar in his description of Coach Rock, and Ms. Chairperson was correct in warning him. The problem was not the speaker’s viewpoint, but how he was expressing it. She could have ruled him out of order, and in
such situations, other Board members may also assist the chair by raising a Point of Order to object to vulgarity or speech that is otherwise objectionable.
Even though the Nutmeg Board of Education had every right to enforce these rules, the last speaker refused to stop talking despite Ms. Chairperson’s efforts. In such an extreme situation, Ms. Chairperson acted appropriately by calling a recess. Bob and Mal, however, want to prohibit the speaker from ever speaking again. That may be an overreaction. As stated, boards of education can impose reasonable restrictions as to time, place and manner of speech. However, it may not be reasonable to permanently deprive a speaker of access to the forum after a single violation, however, egregious. The appropriate response to such situations will depend, of course, on the specific facts. Here, it would likely be more reasonable to prohibit this speaker from speaking at the next meeting in response to his misconduct. If the speaker again
See SEE YOU IN COURT page 6
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. We did this:
By providing opportunities for members to learn how to better govern their districts:
z Participated in CABE Resolutions and Government Relations Committee meetings.
z Discussed board roles and responsibilities and goal setting for the Region #18 Board of Education.
z Discussed board roles and responsibilities with the Norwich Board of Education.
z Responded to 44 requests for policy information from 27 districts, providing sample materials on policy topics. Further, districts continue to access CABE’s online Core Policy Reference Manual and/or online manuals posted by CABE for policy samples. The topics of greatest interest were those pertaining to Cell Phones, AI, and Title IX.
z In partnership with SDE and CASBO, provided a school finance webinar.
z Provided a webinar for board chairs on running an effective meeting.
By ensuring members receive the most up-todate communications:
z Provided one issue of Policy Highlights via e-mail, with information
regarding Emergency Action Plans for Interscholastic and Intramural Events
By attending Professional Development to strengthen staff knowledge and skills:
z Attended COSA State Counsel monthly meetings.
By providing services to meet member needs:
z Facilitated Board Chair Check-In.
z Provided webinar on SDE cell phone guidance.
z Facilitated a board self-evaluation for the Windsor Board of Education.
z Responded to a variety of legal inquiries from members.
z Worked with the SDE in developing cell phone policy guidelines which were adopted by the State Board of Education.
z Continue to participate in a working group for the development of a Title IX Toolkit.
z Prepared materials, as part of the Custom Update Policy Service, for New Fairfield and Sterling
z Prepared materials, as part of the Custom Policy Service, for the Bridgeport, Region 14, Stamford, Stratford, and West Haven Public Schools.
z Preparing a Policy Audit for the Bozrah and Orange Public Schools.
People in the News
CABE Executive Director and General Counsel Patrice McCarthy and Deputy Executive Director Lisa Steimer both recently renewed their Certified Association Executive (CAE) credential. The CAE credential is the highest professional credential in the association industry.
To be designated as a Certified Association Executive, an applicant must have experience with nonprofit organization management, complete a minimum of 100 hours of specialized professional development, pass a stringent examination in association management, and pledge to uphold a code of ethics. To maintain the certification, individuals must undertake ongoing professional development and activities in association and nonprofit management. More than 4,600 association professionals currently hold the CAE credential.
By helping districts operate efficiently and conserve resources:
z Posted policies online, as part of the C.O.P.S. Program for Bethel, Branford, Granby, Region 4, Somers, Woodbridge, and the CABE CORE Manual.
By representing Connecticut school boards on the state or national level:
z Provided interviews with NBC-CT on cellphones in schools and WFSB on menstrual products in schools.
SATURDAY SPEAKER
(continued from page 1)
into their instruction.
Outside the classroom, she has coached at the high school and collegiate levels and has a strong interest in soccer, basketball, and Unified Sports. Beth has also spent over 30 years as a coach and volunteer for Special Olympics. Her work in all of these areas has earned her many citations as both Teacher of the Year and Coach of the Year, and she is a member of the athletic Halls of Fame at Eastern Connecticut State University, New Britain High School, and the Connecticut
SEE YOU IN COURT
(continued from page 4)
violates the rules at a future meeting, the Board can escalate with a longer exclusion, and only if the speaker persistently violates the rules when his ability to speak is restored would it be reasonable to impose a permanent ban against that speaker.
When boards of education provide for public comment, they are typically creating a “limited public forum,” i.e., an opportunity to speak for a specific purpose. In Nutmeg, that would be to hear from the public on issues involving the school district. When a forum is limited to a specific purpose, whether it be general district operations or the board budget (as would be the case at a public hearing on the budget), the board may restrict speech that is unrelated to the forum that the board creates. The speaker who was
z Attended State Board of Education meeting.
z Convened Special Education Funding Subcommittee
z Convened High School Graduation Requirements working group.
z Attended CREC Fall Staff convening.
z Attended Commissioner’s Back to School meeting.
z Attended Juvenile Justice Discussion work group meetings.
z Participated in NSBA leadership call.
z Participated in NSBA Executive Director Liaison Committee call.
Girls Soccer Association.
She holds two degrees from Eastern Connecticut State University, both a Bachelor of Science degree in history and education and a Master’s degree in Human Relations, she was a longtime member of the Mohegan Board of Education and is a current member of the Mohegan Tribe Language Committee. Beth and her spouse Geri White are longtime residents of Hampton, CT where they both serve on various civic committees.
We look forward to having Beth Morning Deer Regan with us on November 15!
railing against the federal deficit could therefore be ruled out of order. As long as the Board is clear that public comment should relate to district operation, speech on other topics is not protected speech.
A final caution in Nutmeg is in order. If the Board permits the public to say nice things about district employees during public comment, a prohibition against critical comments about district employees would be viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. Accordingly, critical remarks appropriately delivered would be protected speech.
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. Shipman & Goodwin is a CABE Business Affiliate
Statewide Chronic Absenteeism Rate Falls, Still Higher than Pre-2020 Rate
Conrad Vahlsing Deputy General Counsel, CABE
The newest, most engaging curriculum is not going to be much use to students who are not in the classroom to engage with it. With new data released by the Connecticut State Department of Education on the EdSight website, there is good news as statewide chronic absenteeism rates fell for the second year in a row.
Chronic absenteeism is defined as when a student misses 10 percent or more of the days enrolled in a school year. Besides the common sense conclusions of how that may affect a student’s academic performance, there is a host of state and national reports and data showing the negative effects. But in Connecticut there is an inspiring trend showing declines in chronic absenteeism not just overall averages but in many individual student groups.
The statewide, K-12 chronic absenteeism rate for the 2023-24 school year was 17.7 percent, down from 20 percent the previous school year. But that is still higher than the school year just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 2019-20, when the rate was 12.2 percent.
Several student groups also saw a fall in chronic absenteeism rates, including what is referred to as the
“High Needs” group, which combines students eligible for free/reduced-price meals, students with disabilities, and English learners/multilingual learners. That group’s 2023-24 rate was 25.5 percent, down from 28.5 percent the prior year. For comparison, the nonHigh Needs average was 7.9 percent for 2023-24, down from 10.2 percent the prior year.
While every success in reducing such rates should be celebrated, there is still work to be done (as always, for school leaders) because the rates are still higher than pre-2020 levels. And individual districts will have their own data and story, as not every district saw an overall decrease in chronic absenteeism between 2022-23 and 2023-24.
It may be difficult to pin point the cause, or causes, of the falling rates. But even if a slow return to pre-pandemic normalcy is perhaps a factor, both state and federal education agencies took seriously the task of increasing attendance levels and reducing chronic absenteeism.
Going back to the beginning of the last school year, on September 13, 2023 the White House issued a press release specifically related to chronic absenteeism, calling for an “all-handson-deck” approach to reducing such
CONVENTION
rates and detailing the efforts the Biden-Harris Administration was pursuing to that end. The U.S. Department of Education issued a statement on the same day detailing efforts to accelerate learning and improve student achievement, including pooling information about state initiatives with a special mention of Connecticut’s home-vising program.
That Connecticut program, called LEAP (the Learner Engagement and Attendance Program), may be familiar to many school leaders. Announced as a new initiative by Governor Lamont in April 2021, the program was initially intended to target fifteen school districts and assist them with student attendance and engagement. As explained in a September 2023 multi-entity (including the CSDE) report, LEAP is “a relational home visit model” whose “mission is to build trusting relationships with families to ultimately positively impact students’ engagement and attendance.” And ideally the visits are not intended to be a one-time event.
The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) and other education entities in the state continue to support the program, with reports and guidance issued periodically, and the number of participating districts
has grown beyond the initial set of fifteen districts. The CSDE held LEAP 101 Relational Home Visit Trainings in August and September of this year.
For reference, three important state websites related to chronic absenteeism are the LEAP program page (ct.gov/LEAP), the general chronic absenteeism page (https://portal.ct.gov/ sde/chronic-absence/chronic-absence), and EdSight, the state education data website where a large amount of information can not only be read, but interacted with and organized, by users. The EdSight website includes the new report on chronic absenteeism (https://public-edsight.ct.gov/students/ chronic-absenteeism) and the general attendance “dashboard” (https:// public-edsight.ct.gov/students/attendance-dashboard) which hosts the data referenced in this article.
While it is of course encouraging that education agencies are prioritizing such efforts, it is likely that the people in local and regional school districts, the teachers, administrators, support staff, board of education members, and students’ families are making the greatest effort, and having the most direct effect, in helping students get in the classroom. And if the recent data is any indication, they are on a good path.
Launching the School Year with Energy
Patrice McCarthy Executive
Director & General Counsel, CABE
The Capitol Region Education Council (CREC), like many school
districts, convened an all staff meeting prior to the beginning of the school year. In the case of CREC, which operates 18 magnet schools as well as special education programs
and services, the convening at the Connecticut Convention Center included all 2,500 CREC staff members. CREC Chairman Tyron Harris (East Hartford) welcomed the attendees. The program included awards recognizing staff members, nominated by colleagues, in each of the CREC core value areas:
• Expect excellence
• Demand equity
• Act with courage
• Embrace collaboration
In addition, a special award embodying all four core values was presented to Sandy Cruz-Serrano, CREC Deputy Executive Director, who is retiring at the end of this year. Sandy
was also honored by the Malta House of Care in 2023 as a “Wonder Women” for her tireless efforts as an advocate to ensure that all students have the opportunities, support and resources needed to succeed academically.
The keynote address was provided by Dr. Bettina Love, a motivational speaker and author. The message was that children deserve to thrive, not just survive and “my child’s future is connected to your child’s future”. She urged educators to give students grace and make dry curriculum come alive and relevant to them.
The energy and enthusiasm of the staff in the room bodes well for an exciting school year for the students they serve.
“Leadership is an action, not a position. ”
– Donald McGannon, (1920-1984) former Chairman, Westinghouse Broadcasting Company
CREC students perform at CREC’s Convocation on August 23.
POLICY IN PRACTICE
Adopting a Collective Response to Cell Phone Restrictions
Jody Goeler Sr. Staff Associate for Policy Service, CABE
As the world of technology rapidly changes, so does its impact on our way of life and, according to concerns raised by many experts, our mental health. Since legislators have been slow to regulate social media companies and hold them accountable for any harm caused to children who continue to have easy access to their platforms, the burden has shifted to states and local district policymakers to balance the need to provide students access to technology and protect them from the distractions, addiction, and overall ill effects commonly associated with social media in particular.
The research on the adverse effects of cell phone use among young children appears to point to the two-year period between 2010 and 2012. At that time, social media and high-speed internet access became readily available, establishing the beginning of this troubling path, which saw a significant decline in outdoor play and increased unrestricted access to social media.
Before the explosion of social media, school cell phone policies emphasized using cell phones in schools to access learning opportunities and gain access to vast information, once only available in libraries and universities. However, as Jonathan Haidt argues in his influential book, The Anxious Generation, with more parents concerned with their children participating in unsupervised and unstructured outdoor play and easy access to social media filling the void, cell phones have become a gateway into personal or physical isolation, loneliness, and anxiety.
In addition to the commonly noted adverse outcomes associated with children’s addiction to cell phones, we can now add that children are developing myopia or nearsightedness earlier in life, resulting from looking too long and too close at phones and tablets. In a recent Hartford Courant article, Ophthal-
mologist Dr. Majida Gaffar noted that while there is no cause for myopia, there are correlations, such as “near work and diet…environmental factors” along with the child of someone with myopia is more likely to be nearsighted. (Hartford Courant, Ed Stannard, September 4, 2024)
Growing research and calls for restrictions have led more states to direct their schools to ban cellphone use among students. The Connecticut State Board of Education’s response was to unanimously adopt a resolution on August 21st supporting the Position Statement and Policy Guidance: Personal Technology Use in Connecticut Schools, which “strongly recommends that policies restrict the use of cell phones during the school day to ensure student engagement in learning, support emotional well-being, and strengthen students’ interpersonal skills, peer interaction, and social communication.” The document also notes, “Personal Technology Use in Schools policies address student relationships with technology, online spaces, social media, and cell phones and their impact on learning and mental health.”
From a policy perspective, this is a genuinely challenging and complicated moment pitting children’s mental health concerns against the need for schools to educate all children to become engaged and responsible digital citizens – consumers of technology and participants in an increasingly technology-oriented world.
Unless Connecticut’s General Assembly adopts legislation restricting personal technology devices (including smartphones and watches) in school, CABE’s model policies will continue to include those that allow for responsible use in schools, with allowances made by individual teachers for specific instructional reasons. Since the State Board has adopted policy guidance reflecting the concerns addressing our state’s young people, CABE’s policy department is introducing a model
policy reflecting the “Position Statement and Policy Guidance.”
This additional model policy for districts to consider, entitled “Personal Technology Use in Schools,” begins with a board statement regarding emerging research regarding social media addiction and its impact on social interaction and communication and the board’s recognition that a “collective response” is required to ensure all students remain subject to the same restriction. “Collective Action” is included and defined as “an action taken together by a group of people to achieve a common objective.” In this case, the “group” would include the board, administration, staff, students, and parents. The objective would be to “limit the distractions and the addictive algorithms embedded in social media apps.”
The model policy continues to provide implementation guidelines reflecting the State Board’s emphasis on “creating engaging learning spaces to mitigate the negative impact that personal devices have on student learning.” It also provides subtle implementation variations based on three developmental levels: elementary, middle, and high school. Importantly, the model policy identifies the responsibilities of the board and superintendent in developing the policy and the responsibilities of the school leaders, staff, families, and students in supporting the implementation of and adherence to the district policy.
As boards adopt policies to comply with the CT Board of Education’s adopted guidance restricting cell phone use in schools, they may recommit to ensuring their budgets support phone-free after-school activities for students to provide alternatives to sitting at home scrolling through their phones. In addition, it will be important for boards to equip their schools with technology to allow for one-to-one access, support training to give teachers best practices for implementing technology-based learning opportunities, and curriculum to support a K-12
technology instruction and skills development for digital citizenship.
While the board policy and budget support are essential for sustaining a coherent approach to address these challenges, the administrative regulations designed to implement the policy effectively require careful attention and consideration: What is your communication and rollout strategy? While most parents support these more restrictive policies, they will express concerns regarding student safety and their ability to reach their children. They will need to be heard and want to hear there’s a plan to address such issues.
Compliance is another critical consideration that should include effective and timely communication that addresses the policy’s “why.” What are the concerns related to cell phones? Why do we need this level of restriction? How will students’ lives improve in school without phones? How will they learn the skills they need to become consumers and contributors in the digital world?
Consider the associated costs of purchasing containment bags or lockers. More economical options may be required and effectively employed.
Even with the best compliance strategies, you’re still likely - very likely - to have a student who tests or resists. What will be in place to address a non-compliant student with a personal technology device? As it is likely that an initial polite request to separate the child from the device may require follow-up, is the staff trained in reducing conflict escalation and insubordination? Will the item be confiscated? Where will it be held? Will parents be required to pick it up? When?
While policy development in this area may be challenging and complicated, developing sustainable administrative regulations is even more so. Regulations that answer these questions will assist districts in having a collective response moving forward.
Stay Interviews: A Best Practice in Staff Engagement and Retention
Luke Forshaw Director of Professional Development Services, C.E.S.
As a board member dedicated to retaining the very best in your district, you come to hear a familiar story from your administrative leadership team. Some gifted teachers and leaders submit their letters of resignation seemingly “out of nowhere”.
Administrators invite the recently resigned to sit and ask them to share their reasons for leaving in an exit interview, fruitlessly trying to make a final pitch for this talented professional to “stay” but realize it’s already too late.
What if we turned this experience upside down? Instead of waiting to react to news of someone’s departure, we proactively orchestrated a conversation designed to carefully gather actionable feedback and to unequivocally let our team members know they are valued!
At Cooperative Educational Ser-
vices we’ve been implementing and refining stay interviews to maximize their impact and generate tangible results for our organization. We’re excited to share some of what we’ve learned and to invite deeper conversation with us, should you want to go further.
In theory, the stay interview is straightforward; but effective execution is nuanced. How these interviews are conducted matters just as much as deciding to commit to the idea. Formal training, and experienced thought partners make a big difference. While as a board member, you wouldn’t personally lead the interview; knowing this best practice and advocating for its adoption within your district can serve a range of your board goals.
Lessons Learned for Quality Stay Interviews
Find a quiet spot where you won’t be interrupted and the employee feels comfortable. This could be at the site of the employee or in a central loca-
tion. The key is to center engagement in the meeting and to hold a conversation, not an interrogation.
We’ve learned to keep the tone of the conversation warm and casual but to rely on a standard set of open-ended research-based questions like: “What do you look forward to when you come to work each day?”, “When was the last time you thought about leaving us, and what prompted it?” and “What can we do to make your job better for you?”
Active listening skills are crucial. Repeating back what’s been said, asking insightful follow up questions and simply using non-verbal affirming gestures help deepen engagement which strengthen the experience. We’ve had the most rich and rewarding conversations when we truly tune in to what our colleagues are saying!
Asking leaders to conduct stay interviews with their team members is a low cost, high yield activity to build engagement and support reten-
tion. Our leaders make sure to listen carefully for current “pain points” in these discussions. Some of the items surfaced in these meetings have quick, but incredibly impactful, outcomes when quickly addressed.
Launching Confidently
Regularly conducting stay interviews and sharing the outcomes of what’s been learned, builds your organizational health; particularly when it comes to sustaining a positive culture and deepening participants’ sense of belonging.
Starting with a manageable volume of interviews along with a clear communication plan for your community can help you launch confidently. Administrators can keep the message and scope of your plan simple and clear. Stay interviews are engagement check-ins, designed to learn from and sustain talent within your district!
FINDINGS
(continued from page 1)
of these working groups developed priority issue areas that were then considered by the entire Task Force. The findings include:
Funding
Districts place students out-ofdistrict because they lack the resources, especially specialists, within the district to program for the student. More robust funding of in-district specialized instruction, including structured literacy and therapeutic settings, would reduce the need for out-of-district placements and result in substantial savings in the long term. One of the distinct advantages of outof-district placements is smaller class sizes. The ability of districts to develop more in-house capacity is reliant on obtaining sufficient funding to provide the sort of small, structured, supportive environment that it available at the RESCs and at private programs. The cap on excess cost reimbursement undermines local education programs and fails to provide the sort of catastrophic coverage that the program is intended to provide. Consideration should be given to amending the ECS formula to add a 25 percent weight for the number of special education students educated
in the school district. The current array of statutory provisions on how schools of choice are paid for the costs of special education services to students living in various districts is confusing. There is a need for incentives to build special education capacity in districts and between districts.
While local districts are now obligated to enter into contracts with private providers, there is no model contract that eases the process. A model contract developed between representatives of school districts and representatives of private placements, with input from the State Department of Education, would be helpful.
Eligibility
Proactive general education interventions through robust Response to Intervention (RTI, known in Connecticut as Scientific Research Based Initiative, also known as SRBI) as part of a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) may reduce the need for special education referrals. MTSS is a comprehensive framework schools can use to provide targeted support to students across levels of intensity. Because these programs are not entitlements, as special education is, tight budgets can result in the loss of critical interventionists in many districts.
Smaller classes provide
opportunity for more individual attention which is conducive to learning. The Task Force is aware of both the cost and the logistic issues of mandating reduced class sizes. More work needs to be done on how to reduce large class sizes over time, consistent with the resources available.
Federal law provides that children between initial eligibility at age 3 and age 9 can be identified as eligible for special education services under a Developmental Delay category, permitting a later identification of a specific disability. Under Connecticut law, however, the Developmental Delay classification can only be used until age 5. C.G.S. § 10-76a(5)(c). The Task Force finds the age 5 cut-off to be too restrictive. Young students can be difficult to diagnose. The age 5 cut-off may lead to some students losing the protections of the special education system because no specific diagnosis can be made. It may also lead to other students improperly diagnosed due to the need to make the diagnosis prematurely. The Task Force, therefore, will further explore the Developmental Delay exceptionality remaining available through age 7, except in the case where there is a clear educational classification earlier.
Students with disabilities face challenges that impact their ability to learn and be present and engaged
in what school has to offer. If a student is unable to learn side-byside with typical peers, the student may experience frustration, anger, or alienation, which can lead to dysregulated behavior.
There is considerable controversy about the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. Some find it dehumanizing and counterproductive to teaching appropriate behavior. Others do not necessarily disagree but see it as a last resort and an essential tool to maintain safety when students become highly dysregulated and dangerous to themselves and/or others. In light of the serious disagreement about the appropriateness of the use of restraint and seclusion, the Task Force finds that the current Connecticut law, which is among the more restrictive in the nation, strikes as reasonable a balance as can be expected in the current climate. In-school suspensions should not be seen as the same sort of punitive deprivation of educational services as an out-of-school suspension.
Services
There are persistent shortages of special education teachers, paraprofessionals, related services personnel, and transportation providers. The causes of these
LISTENING
(continued from page 1)
developed strategies that have significantly reduced the incidents where school board meetings were disrupted by frustrated and angry parents who felt they had to voice their opinions by using inappropriate and threatening behavior.
Students, parents, and stakeholders want their voices to be heard but if they want to be taken seriously, the choice of disrupting meetings in a disrespectful way that halts opportunities to have conversations that are needed to find solutions. Board members need to be aware of issues that need to be addressed but they shouldn’t be involved in the daily operations of school life. CABE reminds us of the roles and responsibilities of school board members with the following statement:
The role and function of board members often are misinterpreted by the public. The school board is a policymaking body and members are the chief advisors to the superintendent on community attitudes. Board members do not manage the day-to-day operations of a school district; they see to it that the district is managed well by professional administrators. Individually, they have no more authority than other members of the public.
Therefore, the superintendent is
FINDINGS
(continued from page 12)
shortages differ somewhat between occupational categories and across school districts. Still, without full complement of well-qualified staff members, special education services cannot be delivered as intended. Steps need to be taken to widen the pipeline for future special education professions.
Another challenge to special education teachers is the tremendous paperwork burden the job entails. Special education teachers are responsible for drafting goals and
responsible for determining how the public’s concerns will be addressed and by whom. Many districts have a DEIB person or committee that can handle these issues.
This fall, as we face a contentious political climate, our students are receiving mixed messages about how adults should handle our differing opinions. School boards and our educational leaders have an opportunity to model for them, through positive interactions during board meetings (which are accessible to all), how leaders can discuss differing opinions in a civil manner as they adopt policies and rules.
Those of us who work as DEIB practitioners begin most workshops, webinars, book discussions, and community conversations with a list of agreements, also called ground rules. This practice is important because many topics are difficult to discuss, and participants need to feel that they are in a safe space where everyone wants their opinions to be acknowledged and valued. To accomplish this goal, we need to have clarity about behavioral expectations during difficult discussions, and all are encouraged to honor the agreements. I think one of the most important agreements is “listen to understand.” When someone is sharing a thought or information, it’s tempting to stop listening to frame a rebuttal or com-
objectives on IEPs, for tracking progress on a daily basis, for writing reports each grading period on each student, all in addition to providing direct and indirect educational services to students. The paraprofessional shortage is particularly acute. The variability of experience, knowledge, and competence of paraprofessionals is wide. The areas of greatest needs remain in the areas of special education: teachers, paraprofessionals, bus drivers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech and language pathologists, and administrators.
There is limited continuity moving
ment rather than hearing them out and taking time to digest what is being said. Below is a list of reminders for those who deal with difficult conversations while meeting or discussing “hot topics.”
• Face the speaker and have eye contact but don’t stare. It’s okay to break contact periodically.
• Do not interrupt.
• Check your posture. Crossed arms can make you look defensive.
• Be comfortable with silence. You don’t have to fill the silence. Some people need time to digest what they heard or time to gather their thoughts.
• Listen without judging or jumping to conclusions.
• Show that you’re listening by removing articles that might distract you such as reading materials, your phone, or computer.
• Do not impose your opinions or solutions while someone is talking. Save those comments for a time when you are in an action planning stage.
• Be fully present. Don’t think about your next task or what’s for dinner.
• “Listen” to non-verbal cues.
• Be patient. Don’t rush the process.
• Hold your thoughts. Do not interrupt. Even a quick interruption can be annoying and make the
from a school-based transition program to the adult world. There are few programs and services that are available to our most vulnerable special education population. Connecticut has a weak infrastructure to serve students as they age out of special education.
While the Task Force does not yet understand how AI can be used to improve special education, the Task Force recognizes the value in examining the potential role of AI in special education.
Some students who are identified as eligible for special education also demonstrate extraordinary talent or intellectual ability. Such students
speaker lose their train of thought. Interruptions can derail the conversation.
• Be open-minded. You can learn so much by hearing a different perspective.
• Be respectful: You don’t have to agree with what they are saying but everyone has a right to have an opinion.
• Ask clarifying questions to demonstrate that you’re listening and to guide you to understanding.
• Ask open-ended questions. Open-ended questions help you gain a better understanding by letting the other person choose the direction of the conversation.
• Give the speaker regular feedback: An occasional affirmation like “yes,” or “I see,” shows that you’re engaged and following the conversation.
• Be aware of your tone. Your voice can indicate boredom or excitement.
The world is constantly changing and all of us can help our students learn how to handle change and stay united. We know our behavior is visible to our students and we must remember that they are listening.
are identified as gifted or talented in the same manner as typical students. Students who have special needs and are identified as gifted and talented are determined twice exceptional. Special education teams should consider the need to meet the unique intellectual needs of twice exceptional students. The unique intellectual needs of twice exceptional students are not always considered.
State Board of Education Members Allan Taylor, Vice Chair Erin Benham, Donald Harris, Sreenidi Bala (Student Member), Sophia Messina (Student Member); Commissioner of Education Charlene Russell-Tucker, Deputy Commissioner Hewes, Deputy Commissioner Sone-Moyano, and Laura Stefon, Chief of Staff/Legislative Liaison engaged in conversation with the CABE Board of Directors on September 11.
September State Board of Education Meeting
Sheila McKay Associate Executive Director for Government Relations, CABE
The State Board of Education members approved a list of vendors that provide translation services for parents in local schools. Legislation passed in the 2023 session created a parent’s bill of rights — the right to have translation services provided (1) by an interpreter who is present in person or available by telephone or through an online technology platform or (2) through a website or other SBE-approved electronic application. These interactions must at least include (1) parent-teacher conferences, (2) meetings with school administrators attended by the student, and (3) properly noticed regular or special meetings of or with members of the school board responsible for the student’s education.
The Parent Bill of Rights is translated in 37 languages, representing 98.7 percent of the languages spoken in Connecticut districts.
The approved list of vendorshttps://portal.ct.gov/-/media/sde/board/ boardmaterials090424/approval_of_ list_of_translation_services_for_english_ learners_multilingual_learners.pdf
Additionally, district leaders
spoke on implementation of changes to cellphone policies for both Berlin and Torrington school districts. Berlin does allow high school students to have phones outside of class time and when students abuse the policy the phone is taken to the office for the day. When they abuse the policy a second time it escalates to a parent having to come in to pick up the phone. Superintendent Brian Benigni said they are using the narrative of culture vs. compliance to implement this new policy. They want to promote the right times and places it is appropriate to use a phone. In Torrington, where they use the Yondr pouches for all grades, the policy has been in place for going on three years.
Torrington Assistant Superintendent Sue Fergusson recommends having forums with parents and students before putting the policy in place.
In the agency update, Kari Sullivan Custer, a SDE consultant, spoke of the work the agency has done to lessen the absenteeism rate. Since 2021, the rate has dropped by 6 percent. There are 87,390 students in school year 23-24, who were chronically absent, down from the high in 20-21 school year of 117,000.
The Learner Engagement and Attendance Program (LEAP) has increased the number of districts that are state funded district participants from 14 to 25. Impressively, there are 100 districts availing themselves of the LEAP 101 training. Custer also noted, “also 30 states and Canada” have availed themselves of the LEAP 101 training.
The state’s biennial budget process
has begun at the department levels.
The current services budget request is a 3.09 percent increase in 25-26 and 0.19 percent increase in 26-27. The capitol budget request is $10 million.
Details are here: https://portal. ct.gov/-/media/sde/board/boardmaterials090424/biennial_budget_submittal. pdf.
Nicholas D. Caruso, Jr. Associate Executive Director for Field Service and technology, CABE
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut and that I will honestly, faithfully, and impartially discharge my duties as a school board member to the best of my ability.”
I remember my first board of education meeting held in the auditorium of our Middle School with a large crowd (my parents, my wife and kids in the audience) and feeling excited and nervous as I raised my right hand and repeated the Oath of Office. As the Town Clerk led us through the swearing -in ceremony, I must admit, I didn’t really focus on the words or their meaning, at the time.
Board of education members across Connecticut, as required by law, recite this pledge prior to taking their seat at the board table. Many of us are so caught up in the moment that we don’t really understand the implications of stating such an affirmation.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut…
When we swear to support and
The Oath of Office
defend the U. S. Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, we are binding ourselves to adhere to laws and regulations set forth by the Federal and State governments. Furthermore, in Connecticut, state statutes dictate that local and regional boards of education must implement the educational interests of the state Those interests are identified in law, as well. In fact, there are hundreds of pages of state laws that dictate much about what boards of education can do in their official capacity.
When community members approach the board and ask them to ignore a law or mandate, they are asking you to go against your word, as well as asking you to break the law. Few community members (and more than a few newly elected board of ed members) understand the significance of that term. You do not have universal authority to do whatever you want regarding your schools. State laws and Federal laws govern much of your work, and you are under the jurisdiction of the Governor, the Connecticut General Assembly, the State Board of Education and the Commissioner of Education. In your oath, you accept those lines of authority.
…and that I will honestly, faithfully, and impartially discharge my duties as a school board member to the best of
my ability.”
Many of the duties of boards of education members are codified in state law, particularly the primary obligations of the board. These are primarily found in Connecticut General Statutes 10-220 and state clearly what the board’s governing authority is. Other state laws also place demands on school boards with many obligations and mandates. The board hires and evaluates the Superintendent of Schools. The board prepares an Itemized Estimate of Expenditures (often referred to as a budget). The board sets and monitors policy. These expectations are not optional.
Your town or city charter might also contain restrictive language regarding your governance responsibilities.
So, how does this align with what many board members believe their responsibilities encompass? Board members, elected locally (sometimes appointed), are often thought of as representatives by their community members and some board members feel the need to serve as advocates for parents, community members and staff. Occasionally, this inclination is in direct conflict with state statutes, or those duties as articulated in the Oath.
It becomes your responsibility to understand those expectations
and limitations and not get trapped between unrealistic expectations and your legal authority. Know the laws, know your responsibilities and learn how to diplomatically communicate those obligations to community members who approach you and ask you to act outside of your role.
The Connecticut General Assembly recognized that the roles of boards of education are different and more nuanced than other agencies and recently passed a law that requires all newly elected board of education members to receive training. Understanding the various roles board members are charged with, and the authority granted to the board, will help you avoid doing something inappropriate.
Take advantage of the many professional development opportunities available to you whenever you have the chance. CABE has an annual Convention (this year it is November 15-16, 2024), other statewide and online learning opportunities, or CABE staff will come out and work with your board directly.
Board service can be extremely rewarding or extremely frustrating. Knowing your appropriate role can make a huge difference in which of those two emotions you end up feeling.
Commissioner’s Back-to-School Meeting with Superintendents and Education Partners
Patrice McCarthy
Executive Director & General Counsel, CABE
At the recent Commissioner’s Back-to-School Meeting, the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) met with superintendents and education partners from across Connecticut to kick off and celebrate the upcoming school year and launch this year’s theme, A Universe of Opportunities
Commissioner Charlene RussellTucker highlighted the following focus areas for the Department during the year ahead:
• Recruit and retain a diverse workforce of educators while modernizing the certification process.
• Support a safe and healthy learning environment for students and school staff, with continued attention to
addressing their mental health needs.
• Ensure students are physically present in the classroom and actively engaged in learning.
• Elevate curriculum frameworks and curricula, with a continued focus on supporting early literacy.
• Modernize and expand postsecondary pathways that advance students in careers of their choice while growing Connecticut’s workforce.
• Improve outcomes for all students, with a focus on increased access and opportunity for students with disabilities.
• Strengthen partnerships with families and communities to promote high-impact practices that make a difference for all students, educators, and families.
The program included a student performance by The Singing Panthers from W.F. Kaynor Technical High School
The panel discussion on A Universe of Opportunities for Connecticut Education included Susan Bysiewicz, Lieutenant Governor; Connecticut Major General Francis Evon, The Adjutant General, Connecticut Military Department; Jeffrey Riley, Former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education; Dr. G. Duncan Harris, Chief Executive Officer, CT State, Capital Campus was facilitated by Commissioner RussellTucker.
Commissioner Russell-Tucker urged attendees to “use this year to deepen our commitment to ensuring each of Connecticut’s 512,652 students can access the universe of
opportunities available and the worldclass education they need for learning, life, and work beyond school.”
Annual PDK Poll Presents Public’s Attitudes Toward Public Schools
McCarthy Executive Director & General Counsel, CABE
The 56th PDK Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward Public Schools, released in late August, finds that Americans’ top educational priorities include the preparation of students to enter the workforce (84 percent) and the attraction and retention of good teachers in public schools (81 percent). Other top priorities include an increased focus on student mental health (73 percent), helping students who have fallen behind academically (72 percent) and college affordability (70 percent).
At least 70 percent favor an increased focus on addressing student mental health, helping students who have fallen behind academically, and college affordability. Two other priorities attract smaller majority support for increased federal attention: protecting students from discrimination (58 percent) and availability of public preK programs (56 percent, rising to 67 percent among public school parents). Just 35 percent call for an increased focus on expansion of charter schools.
In addition,
• Sixty-one percent of Americans (rising to 71 percent of public school parents) prefer a candidate for political office who favors increased funding for the public schools. Among the rest, 29 percent would prefer a candidate who favors maintaining current funding; just 8 percent pick a candidate who would cut school funding.
• Only 40 percent want their
children to become public school teachers. When the question was first asked in 1969, 75 percent wanted their child to become a teacher, and it was as high as 67 percent as recently as 2011. 33 percent cite inadequate pay and benefits and 27 percent cite a lack of discipline in the schools.
• Over 60 percent support using artificial intelligence (AI) to help teachers prepare lesson plans, help tutor students via interactive computer applications, and allow students to practice standardized tests. 55 percent oppose or strongly oppose.
• Forty-six percent of Americans report engaging with their local schools in the past school year in at least one of four ways: attending a school event (41 percent); donating money or supplies (24 percent); attending a PTA meeting (13 percent); or attending a school board meeting (9 percent).
• Fifty-four percent say public education will be extremely or very important to their vote in November. 44 percent say it’ll be somewhat or not at all important. Among public school parents, more, 70 percent, say education will be important in their vote for president, including 31 percent saying it’ll be extremely important.
The survey was conducted in June 2024, in English and Spanish, among a representative, random national sample of 1,009 adults.
CABE Sr. Staff Associate for Policy Services Jody Goeler, Associate Executive Director for Government Relations Sheila McKay, Executive Director and General Counsel Patrice McCarthy and First Vice President Meg Scata (Portland) presented a webinar on cellphone guidance approved by the State Board of Education on August 15.
CABE Executive Director and General Counsel Patrice McCarthy spoke with NBC CT about cell phones.
The CABE Resolutions and Government Relations Committees met on August 27 to discuss resolutions to come before the Delegate Assembly in November.
