001who is in the um so like Hamish for example needs to have his settings changed to be part of the meeting Karen. So if we see any other members of the board that are entering in via uh the public link if we're able to just change their settings to ensure they can fully participate. All right. So meeting is called to order at 3:45. Thank you for all um meeting. I'm going to ask ask uh Karen to go ahead and do the role. >> Yes. Uh >> Bob Stores. >> Patrice McCarthy >> here. >> Hey Mcale is here. >> Here. >> Thank you. Dr. Mel Horton, >> Margaret Gusten >> here, >> Jenny Grades >> here. >> Sarah Laritz Simons, Jennifer Delaney. >> Hello, I'm here. >> Thank you. Tiffany Kowette >> here. Elsa Batisa, >>
002I'm here. >> Bagga >> here. >> Dr. Cynthia Richie >> and Chairwoman Jen Rodriguez >> here. I think we're missing one additional person called off. I've got 15 people noted. Um is there anybody on the call that we did not say their name? Okay. So then we could just do process of elimination afterwards in terms if we um did not. So our uh meeting minutes from today and the 9th will be approved at our April meeting. Um so we can move right into um public comment or participation. I believe um Karen had shared the one piece that had come through. um so that it becomes part of our public record and the board had an opportunity to read that over. Thank you. Um items requiring action. We're going to go into the approval of um
003we're not going to be doing the the approval of the reauthorization um because uh the state board of education will be doing that. Instead, as noted in the email, we are going to be going into approval of regulations to that were amended um in batch 6 through 8. it went before LPDC, the legislative policy development committee on Wednesday and there were some suggestions to amend it uh in order to just move things forward. Uh we went ahead and said that we were in agreement with those amendments, but we wanted to make sure the board was fully in agreement of those amendments. Um if the board is not in agreement of those amendments, then in the March meeting, I will let the state department of educ state board of education know that we are still deliberating
004those. But I wanted to give us the opportunity to kind of go through some of these technical amendments. So that was shared with you. Oh, Dr. Richie is here. Thank you, Dr. Richie, for joining us. So Karen, if you could bring up the amendments document. I think I have it coded as VB amendments. Can you make that larger so we're not looking at all like the email stuff on the left there? Thank you. And then just zoom in a bit. So that is that is not the document that I'm looking for. Um, I can go ahead and share the document because we just want to focus in on the ones that are being amended. So, if you can go ahead and stop sharing, I will go ahead and share. Thank you. Everyone able to see
005that? Should I make it any bigger? Make it a little That made it very big. Is that good? All right. So, I'm going to go to the top here. Um so on part three types of certification 10-145D412 AB4 the original was listed as 36 clock hours. Um it was recommended by SDE during the LPDC meeting that that become 36 semester or three semester hours of credit. Does anyone have any concerns about that change? Can uh can you just say more what this is specifically pertaining to because you know that's an entire course that's an entire course for at the university. Yeah. >> Right. Um so for this particular part I think the whole part of it is this part right here. So it says the applicant shall be required to complete a course of study
006in special education compromised of not fewer than previously it said 36 clock hours. The recommendation was to change it to three semester hours of credit, which would be a, you know, a typical credit um one course um on special education instead of the 36 clock hours um to kind of align it more to uh the vocabulary that would be used in a ed prep program um or a college university um to to align it more with that. >> Um thank you Doria for the question. I see other hands but I just wanted a clarification. Is this like for elementary students? Is this for secondary or because that would give some context. >> Um so I see Julian I let's see if we can get that answered for you right away. Okay so Julianne and then
007Kristen thank you for the question. I appreciate it. So this is the the standard special ed course that's required for all certification and they first began it with 36 clock hours which is equivalent to three credits. And the reason they did it listed it as clock hours and it's the only thing that's ever been listed as clock hours. Everything else is credits is because they used to have some CEU modules for administrators and they could do those modules in lie of the three credits but those don't exist anymore. We don't have the CU modules. So, just to make it even for everyone to understand, whenever we send credential letters to people saying you need a 36 clock hour course, they say, "What does that mean?" We're like, "Three credits." So, it's it's not it's not
008anything new. It's always been three credits is 36 clock hours. And we're just changing the verbiage to make it understandable to everybody. >> Okay. And that's for all initial. All initial. Yeah. >> Thank you. And then Kristen, go ahead. Yep. I was just going to chime in and give you some background on regulation 412. That's the regulation that defines the initial educator certificate and that's true for every initial educator certificate no matter if it's for you know special ed for elementary. So this is part of the requirements for the initial educator s. >> Perfect. Thank you for the explanation both Julian and Kristen. I appreciate that. Um so with that in mind that's one part of it and then the second part of this was uh changing the language from removing instruction on to be
009um amended to the growth and development of exceptional children including um children with disabilities. Um so you can see the full paragraph rewritten with those amendments. Is there any question on that part of it? Okay. So, then we're going to move down to for 412B1. The first set of numbers are all the same. I'm just referring to the last three just to make it a bit easier. So, on this one, um, still falls under 412. Um so we're still talking about that initial and um the recommendation was to remove this entire part or upon the request of the assessment team reviewing such per uh person's performance. Um LPDC asked like who is the assessment team? They had a lot of questions around that and um SDE recommended that we really don't even need the language
010is what they had stated during that time. Um, so the [clears throat] recommendation was to move it forward without that part of it. Kristen, go ahead. >> Yep. And just to give everyone a background, um, this extension language when the regulations ad hoc committee originally met, the reason that we left and included this um, red underlined language was because it's word for for word verbatim from public act 2441. So it was in one of those instances where the law um allows that you can have an additional year um upon the request of this assessment team but that the language is not actually necessary in the regulations because law supersedes frags. So originally the discussion was do we need to have this and we decided to keep it because it matches the law but since law
011does supersede regulations it would be perfectly fine to remove it and it doesn't change um any anything in particular but we did have that same discussion in the regs ad hoc committee of like who who is meant by the assessment team is it the assessment team like the staff at the certification office who is assessing the applications or was it the teacher evaluation team within the buildings? Um, so yes, I would think that removing it would not significantly change um anything for the applicant because the rest of that language does exist elsewhere in law. >> Thank you, Kristen. Uh, Patrice, go ahead. Just help me remember. Do do we still have the language somewhere in law for instance that it can be done um up to three times or do we lo does it now
012if we delete that final uh section? Does it mean that we're only able to grant the extension once? The commissioner is only able to grant the extension once. >> Yeah, there's a whole additional regulation about the extensions. um regulation 615. So that language would still stay and then it's elsewhere in law also. So good question. >> Perfect. Thank you, Julianne. Go ahead. >> Sorry, I'm like trying to like lower my hand. Turn up the microphone. Yes. So, she already answered the questions. I was trying to figure out how to lower my hand. [laughter] >> Got it. All right. So we are going to actually talk about 615 in just a little bit as well. So um rewarded to look like this um duration of initial educator certification. The initial educator certificate shall be valid for
01310 years except and then it just has the or commissioner's designate and we've omitted the rest of it. All right, we're going to move into 421 durational shortage area permits. The original language um said holds a bachelor's degree from an approved institution unless a bachelor's degree is not required in the certificate area which the permit is required. Um this was stated that we should remove this part because it doesn't apply to those folks anyway. It's already stated as such. Um, so is there any discussion or questions for uh Julianne or Kristen? Go ahead. >> Yes. And so the reason it's not really necessary to keep this language is that if it's um if it's a teacher that or a applicant that's trying to become um certified in one of the technical vocational schools then they
014actually can get an interim educator certificate and they don't need to get the DSAP. So there is already a pathway that relates to this you know case where a bachelor's degree is not required in that certification area. So I think that's why the recommendation was to remove that section. And I think you answered Dorothia's question before she even had to ask it. So thank you Kristen. All right. Any other uh discussion on that? All right. We move down to uh part five reissuance and cross endorsements of certification. The original language said served as initial and the request was to add in serve under and initial which would align with other language in uh regulations and statute. So it's a it's a minor technical adjustment to the language. Any questions on that? Right. Perfect. Keep trucking
015along. Um 524C temporary emergency coaching permit requirements. Um the request was to change it to holds a valid as opposed to an unexpired and that was also suggested by SDE. All right. And then um so this is how it would read. Um are we good with that? See no hands up. So I'm going to keep going. I see lots of happy little nodding heads. This part, which is 6:15, um they gave us kind of I actually had them table this because there was so many questions around it that I didn't want to say like we'll amend it and move this forward. Um so this particular part was tabled um and we will revisit it at the next meeting. Um, so here we have the original said, uh, the duration of an initial educator certificate. I
016won't read it to you. I'll let you guys read it. I highlighted it. [laughter] So much like the previous one, they were stating to either delete this portion out where it talks about that um, assessment team review or remove the whole thing and allow it to sunset. Am I remembering that correctly, Julianne and Kayn? This This would be the one um [clears throat] excuse me, if they didn't serve under the certificate. Oh, I'm sorry. If they did serve under the certificate for the full 10 years. And that would be Yes. So what would happen is is that so we're we're getting rid of that assessment team but the employing district or if they're an approved non-public school I mean it's not the requirements are different but just the employing district will verify through the EDS
017that their service was successful. So that's their way of supporting them um for the one additional year. So, um, this is necessary if they served for the entire duration of the certificate and they just haven't finished all requirements to advance. Thank you. I see Dorothia's hand up. Go ahead, Dorothia. >> We can't hear you. I'm sorry. No worries. >> Sorry. Um I did have just one question. So we did extend the initial from seven years to 10 years. Is that correct? >> Three years to 10 years. >> Three. Yeah. So I'm wondering why even having this period. I mean seems an awful long time to be able to get requirements. But so that was just my question. I mean >> um I can't speak for who when the statute was written. However, I believe the
018intention was to build in flexibility. um you know they have three years to complete team that that's that's non-negotiable because that's also in a separate statute. Um but you know this statute was written prior at the same time as the statute that was passed saying you have to have a master's degree. So it could have been like a type of flexibility that's been added in. But you know the work of this group is to find alternative pathways. So you're right, you could technically just, you know, and in and in a different part in the document, they're going to get into balance of time, which would not also not require this at all, but 10 years is a long time. So that might be a discussion for the board. >> Thank you, Kristen. >> Right. As
019it stands, the the language either in the original or the amendment both comply with the law. So, the law that's on the books right now currently gives this extension language. So, you can grant it up to three times for a year each time. Um, so if it's something that our board wants to consider in the future, we would need to do a legislative amendment first and then come back and change the regs later. So I for me either keeping the original which keeps that language that matches with the law about the um assessment team or the amendment that removes that language would both be acceptable. They both you know correspond with the law. Um and then just a a thought about like why are we allowing extensions? Um, and I think part of it is,
020as was mentioned, the the master's degree requirement. You know, my first years of teaching were all when I had a really young kid, and if I only had a few years to get a master's, you know, that that's a big challenge. And I think the original intent was to give people a little more flexibility. um you know when especi uh there is a typo which I hope was not in the original draft where such has two h's but um you know I I think the intent was to give additional time because there also is no backup so if a person serves under their initial educator certificate for 10 years and they don't meet the requirements and this extension is not available it's unclear whether they lose their certification and therefore can't teach right And that's
021we would really want to avoid that. If someone wants to continue teaching and they were certified, we want to make it a possibility that they're able to reup their certificate um and meet the requirements to become professional, have their professional educator certificate. >> Thank you. And just so you know, my H keeps sticking on my keyboard. So that was likely my error when I typed this up. So my apologies. I promise it will be fixed before it goes before anybody else. Uh, Jen, go ahead. >> Hi. Um, yeah, I was just echoing what Kristen said about um just being having flexibilities, having things open. We don't know you. So, if we if we have this there, it's not hurting, right? And even if only helps five people every year, it it could help us keep
022teachers in classrooms. So that's my thought on that too because that ran across my mind too, Dorothia. And then I thought, well, so many different situations in this, you know, profession that this could apply to, and it's probably not that many, so why not leave it? Um, that's my thought. >> All right. Um, I see Julian's hand. Thank you, Jen. And just another backup, I think originally when you look back, initials were three years. And so we need that's when you need more of an extension. Now they're 10 years. Now they can get three more extensions. Plus there's additional information that we're putting out for people who if you didn't serve at all, you get a full renewal. So it's just what about people who served for a few years in between, but not a
023full 10 years. And so that it's creating flexibilities so that no matter what situation you're in, there's a pathway that we can you're not just going to lose the certificate. So, I agree with everything that everyone said. >> So, it sounds like we are leaning towards amending it and removing that blue highlighted section that I have up on the screen and not allowing it to sunset. Is that accurate? >> Yes, for me. >> Okay. Um, I only added this bottom part uh for 615 to reference that it is referenced elsewhere in in regulations and that if we did sunset it then we would have to be amending other areas where the 615 is referenced. So I just wanted that's what that bottom portion was for the board um in terms of that. So with that
024in mind, I would cater a motion to um allow these amended items to move forward to the March State Board of Education meeting. I'll motion that. >> That's Jen Delaney. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> So many people just vying for a second. I believe Hamish was the second. So I appreciate everybody. >> Madam Chair, you're frozen eagerness. >> Point of order. I believe this is going to have to circle back. Will it not have to circle back to LPDC? >> No, ma'am. because we approved it to move forward to as amended to the state board of education and that is the document report that you wrote up to send to state board of education. We had this emergency meeting to make sure that the board was in okay with that. They are
025okay [clears throat] with that. So, we've checked all of the them off because LPDC said that they were willing to move it forward with the amendments. So, it's already gone through LPDC with these amendments. So, we're all set. you. >> Thank you. All right. Uh so with that in mind, uh we'll go move it to a vote and I'll just quickly call off folks names and then we're going to move on. Um let's see. So, uh Dr. Richie, >> yes. >> Kristen, >> yes. >> Elsa, >> yes. Tiffany, >> yes. >> Jen Delaney, >> yes. >> Sarah, >> yes. [snorts] >> Jenny Graves, >> yes. >> Margaret, >> yes. >> Mel is still not on the call. Correct. Hamish. >> Yes. >> Perfect. Uh Shannon, I don't believe is on the call. Uh Patrice, >>
026yes. >> Doraththa is sitting in for Dr. Row. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Bob, >> yes. >> And the deputy commissioner is not on the call as well. Thank you. So this passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Um next uh item is kind of going over some of the things that are coming up for um for our well they're coming up in legislation. Dr. Richie, do you want to speak about some of these items or would you like me to kind of just pull them up and go from there or >> I think if you pull them up, we can talk about them together. I I'm not an expert in all of them, but I can I want to highlight some of the titles that have come through. I think others could speak to them
027as well. >> Perfect. So, this one is um 105, which was sent to you via email early this morning. It's an act limiting various occupational professional licenses, permits, certification, registration fees. Um I believe the last session they had gotten rid of some of the fees. Correct me if I'm wrong, Kayyn. Um and this specifically would get rid of the um professional permit fee. Is that correct? >> Okay. >> So during last session effect Yeah. So during last session effective um 10125 they removed all fees for issuance of an initial and renewal and that also includes the non-renewable and the interim initials. Um, this would remove fees for adding a cross endorsement as well as advancing a certificate to professional. >> And this was the governor's ask, I believe. Correct. >> Um, I don't know if
028that being the governor, was it the governor's ask? I don't know, Julie. I I didn't see that as a part. I mean, I know it was something he discussed. >> Yeah. My my understanding is that's where it came from. We we didn't ask for it because this >> means we have no money coming coming in. Well, I mean, I Yeah, he he I know he's doing an executive order like soon like of something different, but this um I I believe that it's the senators who are were introduced that are listed on the bill from my understanding. >> Yeah. All right. Is there any discussion on this in terms of where our board stands on this? Jenny, go ahead. >> Um I just had [laughter] a quick question of where do the fees go to? What
029is what do the fees fund? >> Um the fees actually go into the general fund um at this point. So once they're collected, they're placed in the general fund. >> The general fund for the state of Connecticut. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Dorothia, >> um I just want to understand will this have an adverse impact on CSTE functions? I mean it sounds like it goes first into direct you know the general operations so it could not get to the CSD anyway but I I would just like to understand if there's any impact on them >> I can't speak to that specifically I I believe the goal here is to try to lessen the burden on our educators. >> Oh yeah I totally get that. I I just think sometimes
030you could also advocate to make sure that those funds are directed in particular ways too so that the functions of the CSTE are not undermined. So you know thank you. Yeah, I mean it sounds like everything kind of goes into a general fund and they kind of allot their budget from there. So I think it would just be re revenue to the state directly that would be impacted and then how they allocate um and fund different organizations. I'm [clears throat] not sure they have like a direct line to saying like because we're not going to be collecting this thus we're not going to be funding something specific. Um but I could be wrong because I don't know the ins and outs of the state budget [laughter] and how they allocate their funding. Um, Hamish, >>
031uh, fully supportive of getting rid of this for, um, the reason of educators have a lot of things that go on their plate, whether that's, you know, part of their budget or not. They end up having to put the reach into their pockets for a whole series of things. And this just feels like it's like, you know, that's a val like this is another piece of that that doesn't really provide any value for the educator themselves other than obviously continuing to work. But I I just don't see the benefit to the educator and nor do I see um yeah, I don't see an overall value for like the state on in large terms. I know that it raises money for it, but um I don't want to do that on the backs of educators who
032are working really hard and who are frankly um underpaid compared to similarly educated um uh uh workers. So I would like to you know definitely try and get rid of this if possible and I'm I'm thankful for the senators and anyone who wants to get rid of this. So appreciate it. >> Thank you Hish. So, with that in mind, uh, you know, for voting purposes, just so we have on record, do we have anyone who is in favor of keeping the fees on the board currently? Okay. It doesn't appear to be. So, um, the board would be in favor of us writing testimony stating that we are in support of removing the fees. >> Yes. All right. The the next one then is going to be uh one that I believe is near and dear
033to Dr. Richie's heart because she did bring up something similar to this at our last meeting. Uh in terms of a math specialist, um the bill really only talks about us and the math um writing guidelines for the role for math specialist, which would imply that we would have to create a math specialist um in there. So, I'm going to pull it up right now and share the screen with you. Um, the part that pertains to us is really towards the end. So, I'll scroll up a bit. I believe it's line 40 no later than the commissioner of education shall designate high school mathematic pathway. Did we say the number was? It was lines 47 4 B. 47 to 59. So right here, the commissioner in cons consultation with our board established um shall develop
034guidelines for the role of a mathematics specialist in supporting mathematic interventions in schools. Um so it doesn't go into great detail about it. It just says that we would come up with guidelines. Um, but that implies that we were going to create an endorsement code then for that and for the guidelines. So I think if we were going to make a recommendation, we might recommend that they amend the bill to state that we are creating an endorsement for that because I don't really feel like it spells it out very clearly in the bill. Julianne, >> it could be that because it's not talking about actually adding an endorsement. It's just guidelines for who can serve in that role. It could be more of like a how do you feel as far as compliance like oh,
035I'm a math educator. I'm already certified in math. Do I need something extra to be a math specialist? That would again would be a you know guidelines for appropriately placing someone in position, but not necessarily a new endorsement. It may go to the point where it is a new endorsement. Um the if you specifically my my one caution I would say is if we do create an additional endorsement that's going to make it a little more challenging for districts to place people in that position because then they can't just have their math teachers do it. They have to have someone who has a specialist endorsement. So that's that's that's the trade-off. Um, if you have a guideline for who should be in that role, that gives a little more flexibility to say this is what
036we want without having you to require to get a specific endorsement to do so. >> Thank you, Julianne. Um, Hamish, >> question uh for Julian actually. So if we have something s like analogous to um like the literacy coach or literacy specialist, what does that look like compared to I mean like what what's the discrepancy right now? There is this literacy specialist or what does that look like? And you I can imagine a scenario where they look similar and they have similar expectations. But anyways, I love >> So, so currently you can be you can be a um a literacy coach and do some intervention as long as you have a grade or subject appropriate endorsement. Whereas if you're going to be an actual remedial reading teacher, you have to have the 102. So, this
037is where I'm I'm imagine they're looking at like maybe they're going to say to be a math interventionist or be a math specialist, do you need to have anything in particular or do or do you want to raise it to where it's like you need you need the equivalent of a 102 but for math? And that's, you know, do those are the pros and cons between making it an actual full endorsement versus guidance that says here's what you should have, you know, to be the best pick for someone in that role. And then >> sorry my my mouse my mouse isn't working so I apologize. I just want to say that right now it's a lot more flexible. So districts have the ability to put a grade appropriate teacher in there. So if you were
038an elementary certified teacher and you're strong at teaching math, you could be the math specialist right now for a school without having to have something separate or a math endorsement for example. >> Thank you Cynthia. Go ahead and then K and then Lauren. >> Thank you. I also want to um share my excitement for line 55 where there is the talk about potentially having a dis um statewide math initiative focused on reading um I'm sorry and learning just like it was for ReadCon for reading. Um and that just goes back to the goal of trying to bring everyone together to benefit through shared um lifelong learning that's high quality. So really glad to see that mathcon um right there. And just a little bit more about the math specialist. I do think it's more than
039just a teacher who's in the classroom teaching math. I think there's always more to learn and you have to elevate um the subject of math and the technical um uh parts of it. And I think additional coursework would elevate that person to become the math specialist. And schools would benefit from someone with that expertise. Thank you. And then Lauren. >> Oh, no. I was just going to add on to what Julian was saying. So, if if the board supported this and it went in the direction of a math specialist that was more analogous to the remedial reading teacher or a reading consultant, it's important to note that we because it doesn't yet exist, no university in the state would have a program leading toward it. So you'd have to build a very long runway before
040you could require the certificate because there wouldn't be any institutions currently prepared to offer it. Does that make sense? >> Yes. If we went down the road of it being an endorsement code for an interventionist, right? Is that what I'm hear? I just want to >> was going to require a full program then you would need the institutions to have a long runway to build it. >> Okay. All right. Uh, Hamish, go ahead. >> No, I was just going to say that I'm I just want to express my support for this overall. I think that it's great that math is getting a focus that um, you know, obviously literacy has had a focus in the last few years. And it's important to say that, you know, if we're going to make changes to the math
041experience for kids, whether it be through tiered intervention structures that are a little more built out from educators who have expertise in this field, whether it's, you know, the other pieces of this, including Mathcon, including MA high school pathways. I think it's good for us to have um, you know, statutory authority to do some of those things because then it allows us to have this really good conversation and be part of it. So I I would express my support for this broadly. So um I would say uh at this point then for this particular one we are in support of how it currently is written for creating guidelines for the math specialist and then kind of delving into that work and if we wanted additional legislation after the fact that maybe that's something for the
0422027 in terms of like identifying a specific endorsement code or we can just create an endorsement code and go down that road over time um within regulations. Is that accurate? Okay. And the board is in favor of this particular language as it stands. All right. Is there anyone who's not in favor from the board on the language as it stands? All right. So let's go ahead and move to the next one um on that list which was I believe it's SB5217 an act establishing the commissioner of education department head of the department um that is and isn't really on our list. I was really just putting it out there for you all to be aware of. Um, Patrice and I were at the last board of ed meeting and we listened to a lot of
043conversation by the state board of education and there was a uh study done on what that may or may not look like. Um, you might want to speak to your own organizations to see where they stand on that and provide some public testimony. Um, it isn't directly related to our board um, in terms of our charge, but I did want to put it on everyone's radar that that was out there. So, I'm not going to necessarily put it up up now, but if Patrice wants to speak to that as well. Um, we were both at that meeting and we were a little floored by what we heard. Um, and we wanted to put it on your radar as it does affect us in the long term in terms of like how we do business potentially.
044Um, but it isn't directly education preparation and certification. Patrice, go ahead. >> Thanks. Um, I would agree it's not appropriate for this group uh to take a position on this. The bill as it is currently drafted does not go as far as the advisory state board of education which certainly caused a great deal of concern uh and discussion at the last state board meeting but it could be the first step down a path which would provide for less >> I think you public input. >> Thank you Patrice. So, that was really just to kind of put it on your your radar and your organization's radar in in case you guys wanted to um you know, read deeper into that. I I look at a lot of bills and I don't always realize all of the
045bills that are out there. Um and that was one that uh we were a little surprised by the conversation and what came out of that. Sarah, go ahead. >> Just a technical question. What's the name of the document where these new bills or is this in the email that was sent earlier today? It was in the email that was sent earlier today and they're all linked. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Um the next one is an act concerning stipens for student teachers. Uh House Bill 5216 and I will share that screen with you now. Was that a excitement there Kristen or were you stretching? >> No. One of my co-workers is going home so the same by. So, um, if you want to take a moment to to read that over, um, and see
046if there's, uh, kind of see where we stand on the stipens for student teaching and, um, any discussion around it. Dorothia, >> sorry. Um, I haven't gotten any of the documents, but I know that our um people at Yukon were talking about this. We're supportive of it. And this is a case where last year they had some legislation that was trying to give stipens for student teaching, but there was no no funding mechanism. And so that is why we were against it last year because it was unclear how [snorts] that would actually be funded. But here it seems that the state is going to fund these stipens. So we were supportive of that. >> All right. It's good to hear. Thank you. Um and the background as well as the change in position based on
047that information, right? Um is there anyone in the group that Oh, Kristen, go ahead. Yeah, I also think this wording makes more sense than um there is currently a way that if you volunteer and student teaching counts as volunteering that you can get paid a certain amount of money, but it's not really related to like the hours that you worked. And I don't want I don't really like the idea that, you know, student teaching is volunteering. I like the wording of this bill where they're saying it's a stipen for the work that you're doing um as you're becoming a fully credentialed teacher. So, I would be in support of this bill as a member of this board. >> Is there anyone on the call who is not in support of this particular bill that we
048should have discussion around? All right. So, our position is that we are in support for the stipens. Sounds good. And then our last one, I believe, is um Senate Bill, yes, Senate Bill Act concerning aspiring educators to expand eligibility under the aspiring educator scholarship program. Um I think that was on the docket last session. Um does anyone have any strong feelings one way or the other for this particular one? We were discussing a um a scholarship ourselves and that has been tabled to the next budgetary cycle uh by the legislative policy development committee. Um let's go ahead with Jen Delaney first then Hamish and then Kristen. >> Hi. Yes. Um just in support of this, I have nine candidates who were able to um apply for and um earn an award for this scholarship and
049it was just a huge help for them. Um and I hope that we can continue continue with it. um given that uh there's just so many expenses that go with training to be a teacher and particularly at ARC, our average candidate is from the ages of 35 to 55 years old and they have children and they have mortgages and they live in Connecticut and they're going to stay in Connecticut and they're going to um participate in in school districts in and around alliance districts, especially if they graduated from an alliance district. um the chance that um you know they're it's just a good investment is what I'm trying to say. They're not they're not leaving after they're done with the programs that's uh at least here um because they're from here and they're going to
050stay here. So just wanted to throw that out there. >> Thank you. Jen Hish. >> Hi. Yes. Uh I just wanted to say that I you know obviously appreciate the the work being done on this and I think that it's really important to continue to expand eligibility for it. I just the original impetus of this bill was um stemming from the increasing educ diversity oversight council and some of the work that we've done on increasing diversity. And so we want to make sure that whatever language is there is in ensuring that you know we are expanding but we're also expanding purposefully. So we don't obviously want to exclude folks but we also want to not lose the sight of the original intent of the legislation. So we are saying you know broadly I don't think
051the you know the oversight council has said specifically what we want but I think we don't want to lose um a focus of of um including uh and propping up the work that we've done to um further diversify the educator workforce. supportive overall but we also want to make sure that we um are doing the right thing with the right investments that we have. So thanks for this and you know we'll be supporting generally and broadly ensuring that people who need scholarships are able to get them so that they can you know pursue education regardless. So thanks >> thank you Hish Kristen go ahead. Yeah. And I I think it's really important to Haish's point that they left in language under section 2 2 A where it says, you know, those subgroups of the population
052that are under reppresented in the teaching profession in the state um can be a way that the commissioner considers the the scholarship. So, it did leave in a section or I think it actually added that section um because it removed the high school graduation requirement um from an aspiring an alliance district from earlier. So, you know, the requirement that you be a graduate of of an alliance district would also leave out young teachers of color who graduated from other districts, right? So, I think this is a good expansion. Um, I do think in terms of the scholarship that we talked about that there's still a separate need for that scholarship. um in that this one is for aspiring educators going into a 4-year institution of higher education, whereas ours would be for current educators who
053are looking to crossindo or um get their masters or required coursework for their professional educator certificate. So, it's kind of a different pool. Um, but I I do think this matches like a purposeful expansion of the scholarship program that'll reach more um high school graduates. >> Thank you, Kristen. Dorothia, >> again, I'm sorry because I didn't have the language, but I did want to make sure and it looks like it was addressed, but last year we had concerns that by focusing only on shortage areas, you would actually not be able that would eliminate a lot of students who are from under reppresented groups. But it looks like that language has been addressed. Looks like that's been cleared up. >> Thank you. All right. Is there anyone um who from the board who is opposed to
054uh this particular bill? >> All right. So, uh, what I propose is that, um, we will write up a very brief, uh, public testimony just saying the board reviewed these items, uh, and that the board is in support of, um, these particular items with the exception of obviously the commissioner one because that's really not our purview. Um, but the ones that we did review and have a discussion around, I can send you the draft of that. Um, I do think that public participation already happened today for the um, math curriculum one. Um, but we can still submit written testimony saying that we support that because that comes afterwards anyways. Um, and any public testimony in terms of hearings if you plan to um, participate on Mondays, which most of these are are slated for Monday,
055then you would have to sign up, I believe, by Wednesday. and I included that information at the bottom of the email on how to sign up for public particip participation or to submit written testimony. Um, but I will draft something this weekend and send it to you all um just to kind of look over and see if there's any technical edits that need to be done. Um, but it will be a very brief the board reviewed these bills on this date and the board is in support of them. Um and I'll list the different um stakeholder organizations that uh we represent as part of the board so that they have an understanding of of who that also means. Um does anyone have any objection to that? All right then I think we can call this
056a meeting. Thank you so much for meeting so that we can ensure that those things move forward. 615 will have to go back to the LPDC whereas the other ones were amend and move forward. um so that they're all set for the state board of education's meeting in March which I will probably see Patrice again for a full day um at that meeting. Uh again, thank you for your flexibility. In terms of any other um bills that come up because I don't want to call us into a special meeting every single time. I might send out just a quick uh survey with the links to those bills to get your input as to whether or not you are for um or if you have any concerns about them. and then I'll draft something and send
057it out to the board for review before we submit any testimony on that. I want to honor your time and I appreciate the flexibility in you all coming together today. So, thank you very much and uh stay warm and cozy. I'll take a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjourn. >> All right, that was Dr. Richie. Can I get a second? That was Jenny Graves. All right, we are adjourned by general consensus. Stay warm. Hope your commutes are safe this evening. We'll talk to you soon. >> Thank you. Bye.