001Good evening everyone. Um, it is now 7:07. I'd like to call the May 13th, 2026 policy committee meeting to order. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to theublic one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. As a reminder, please turn be sure to turn on your microphone when speaking and voting to ensure those online can hear you. Um, so our first agenda item is approval of our minutes. And you've all received a copy of the minutes in your packet. Are there any corrections or abstensions? Hearing none. Can I have a motion to approve the April 8th, 2026 regular policy committee meeting minutes? >> Motion to approve. Second. >> All those in favor? >> I motion passes. Have
002we received any comment this evening either online or in person? >> No public comment this evening. >> Thank you. So that brings us to our old business for review and possible action on several policies. Our first policy that we will be reviewing and discussing tonight is 6141.328 instruction bring your own device and protocol for the use of personal technology in schools. For this, our recommended policy um change was we were we wanted to change the device paragraph to align with the same language that we utilized for the 5000 series um approved re revisions that got moved to the full board and we still need to discuss that as a full board. Um, and then just uh I know we all kind of are familiar with this, but the blue are for revisions and the red
003is language that's been um our last time that we have reviewed and approved this policy was in July start off by just saying thank you for adding that paragraph. And I see all of the um different uh types of devices and technology instruments that we talked about in that uh second paragraph. thoughts. So the only change through the chair, the only change is the red line is out and the blue is recommended which covers a wide range of devices and Okay, correct. Thanks for the chair. >> And we had a rather robust conversation um and we had a lot of guidance from Mr. Telki and you know really teased out some of the language and I know we've looked at model policy. We even looked at some of the other districts policies that they've used
004um the language that was used and we tried to make it as relevant and uh current to reflect the access that students have to various technology tools. So I I I think that the committee's done a great job and district's done a really great job in um thinking as deeply as possible of like what possible things students could have. So we make sure that the policy is is broad enough where needed but specific enough where needed as well for sharing. >> Okay. So, I would like to uh make a motion to move the revised policy 6141.328 instruction bring your own device and protocol for the use of personal technology in the schools to the full board for consideration. >> Seconded. >> Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none. All those in favor? I motion passes.
005>> Maybe old business will be easier than new business tonight. >> Okay, so that brings us to policy 6141.32911 device program. Sure. lost in a CF policy. >> Okay. So, the recommendation for this policy, um there was a few revisions that were made um due to the policy that was uploaded. It had some grammatical errors, uh some conversion errors. So, those were all corrected. Blue is keep, red is take out. the chair. This may be a question for Deputy Superintendent Faul. Uh the use agreement is this agreement universally uh applied throughout the district? So this device agreement would be for the same agreement that all students will receive. >> Hello again. >> Hello. >> Um so the device use agreement uh is an annual agreement that our students and parents do have to uh sign
006off on each year. It is a part of our power school e- collect forms. uh it has grown actually beyond the scope of just this uh exact agreement over the years as the technology has has evolved uh especially since the onset of covid where students were taking devices home. So there have been uh additions to different agreements uh over time but the the main language of the policy itself is still encapsulated in their annual agreements. >> Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, I'd like to make a motion to move the revised policy 6141.32911 device program to the full board for consideration. So, moved. So other uh any further discussion or questions? >> The only the only thing that I feel a little bit compelled to say is many students have technology as a way for them
007to access the curriculum. And while we certainly want to ensure that students are using the technology appropriately and that there is um there is a policy that governs that that because it is a tool for many students. Well, and sometimes it's the only tool for certain for students in uh certain classrooms and certain with certain curricula that the district I'm sure in the absence of technology will still find a way for students to access the curriculum because for many students in including students in special education um who may have technology as part of their IEP and a way for them to access to curriculum. I I can appreciate that there is form that is signed but I want to be sure that we are prepared for students who may lose access to the technology that
008those students are also being supported with the curriculum. So, I just feel like there's a little bit of a caveat there because sometimes uh the Chromebook is the only way for students to access the curriculum. So, if the child loses um permission to use the Chromebook, then the teacher has a paper copy of everything. And a lot of kids come with not charged Chromebooks, so they already have the copy. It's ready meeting. Um, so I think the one thing that was coming up for me was if we do move this one to the full board, um, to me it makes sense to review, um, these two and the 5000 series like all the policies that kind of are revolving around the technology because they're all kind of interrelated. I think that when we talk about
009it as the full board, it would be helpful to review them all together. Just just a thought. Are those um some of those listed on here? Is that those 5,000 or >> No, it's the 5,000 that at our last policy committee meeting, we moved it to the full board and it tabled. Um I can't remember the number on it but it's about >> through the chair it's 5131.81. Great. >> Yep. >> And then one last question. Just wanted to clarify on the last one, two, page five. On the last page before the form in the second bullet point, just wanted to double check if it says this is all families will have the option to participate. I know there's a motion on the floor. I'd like to amend that motion to include the revision we
010just discussed um on page I believe five to make that correction to participate any further discussion or questions all those in favor I >> I motion passes That brings us to policy 5113, attendance, excuses, and dismissal. This is a mandated policy. Um it was um the one that BPS currently has. It was based on a cave model policy. For our audit, we needed to add or update the legal references. Um blue are revisions, red is language that's being um removed per the new cave sample. Um and this was last approved September 13 of 2017. chair the language on the second page in blue. So the recommended language, where did that language come from? The new K policy. Gotcha. I found the language about the mental health wellness day just interesting. Not that we all couldn't
011use a mental health day. Um would a parent just indicate that this is one of the mental health days as a reason for taking the Okay. Gotcha. Is the um mental health wellness day those days are they in effect right now or Oh, they are. Yeah, this was Mandy. And if students are permitted to take two of those a year and those are two of the 10, 10 being the ceiling of No, it's not 10 days. What is 18? I was looking at 10 within 10 school days, but I knew that didn't sound right. Not that that's not that we want students to take that many days, but it's it's not two additional days because of inclusive in their In parent square there is an opportunity to provide a reason for absence. in that box.
012Uh the box on the second page where it reads such such documentation includes a signed note from the students parent, a signed note from a school official that spoke in person with the parent guardian regarding the absence for a note confirming the absence by the school nurse or licensed medical professional as appropriate. Do we feel like that covers the opportunity to provide uh an excusal through parent square? >> Okay. Yeah, it's just a digital signature instead of >> Okay. Gotcha. Perfect. >> Any other questions? like to make a motion to move the revised policy 5113 attendance excuses dismissal to the full board for consideration. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I did you just think of something? I for me >> well it
013it's it's not ne it doesn't necessarily it doesn't change my vote on this um but I somewhere I don't know if it's important for people to know that you are considered absent if you are missing from so you're present if you're there 51% of the day you're considered present um so that might be important for um people to know that you're you're the mark or present. It it always was important to me because if I ever had to Sorry, it does say it. Oh, did I miss that? >> I believe it does say it probably in the beginning. >> Oh, wonderful. I have missed it. >> And I've read over this thing. I can tell you how many times it's in the second in the very first page. Oh, where it reads for at least
014half of the regular school day. Okay, that brings us to truency. It's policy 5113.2. Um, this is another mandated policy. uh BPS's was pre previously based on a cave model and per our audit we needed to add update legal references reviewed the regulation to ensure compliance with updated statutes um blue revisions read its language that's being removed and this was last approved uh September 13th 197. actually updated statues. I'll just put this out there. I'm good with how it reads. I have no further questions or discussions on it. I make a motion to move a revised policy 5113.2 truency to the full board for consideration. So moved. Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Motion passes. LC 5114 suspension and expulsion due process. This was another mandated policy. Um ours was previously based
015or the districts was previously based on uh Gabe model policy. And then the audit identified that we needed to add and update our legal references, modify um and add or update the regulation due to legislative changes. uh last approve reviewed and approved in June of 2019 the chair. Go ahead. Um I do want to share with you in reviewing um this policy uh superintendent and white and I reached out to Jodie Gayler because uh in part of it it says as of 2018 you were supposed to have um a full day program for anyone who is expelled. Um and we asked Jod, is this just guidance or is this a mandate? and he said um he said providing only a few hours of tutoring is likely a compliance risk. While tutoring was the historic norm,
016current state law and CSD standards now require comprehensive experience. Providing only a few hours of tutoring without a formal individualized learning plan that ensures creditbearing progress puts the district at risk for compliance audit and a legal challenge. So, um I put that out there because that is going to affect the budget um that we are going to have to um look to get the whole district in compliance. Um and uh this policy that we're looking at right now um what it really the purpose of it was to meld the climate policy that we had earlier and the a suspension policy. Um, but it will also be something that I just want to be completely transparent with the board that we realize that we've been out of compliance for six years. >> Have we h put
017any consideration towards how many students this might impact yearly like what is the trend for expulsions? currently. Um I think we are I can tell you the definite number if you give me a second. And just on another note, that second packet there is the um that's labeled 5114 is the regulation. I just didn't staple it all. I think together if it's not all in one4 R. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> And you might not have this addendum question available, but then how many of those students are identified as special education? Um, just thinking about the ones that I've been in, I would say approximately 75%. So, there are about um I'm going to say 30 students that some are carried over from last year that are still um holding out their
018expulsion year as well as new ones from this year. So approximately about 30 students. >> So then it it's it's a finance and operations question. But then you know what funding sources might we be able to use to support you know if we have some if 75% of special education you know I see Dr. Martino, >> I'm excited to hear our deputy superintendent really highlight the need that we really need to have an expulsion program that is uh comparable to a full day program. We've been out of compliance in terms of some of our special education students because this also becomes a violation of fate. We have had to consider out of district programs because that is the only avenue. Um, so if we were to consider some of those and perhaps create a program
019rather than go out of district, I think we might actually have a watch. Um, so I'm excited to know that we do need to move this forward and think about it in a different way. Well, we may be coming back to the table with an exposion program policy at some point. Thank you. Great questions. Thank you for adding that information, Deputy Superintendent Hawk. I think that's really important to note, >> especially as we have budget conversations. Mhm. like to make a motion to move the revised policy 5114 suspension and expulsion due process to the full board for consideration. So moved. Second. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I motion passes. So policy 0521 equal opportunity non-discrimination. Um this is another mandated policy and per our audit we need to
020add and update legal references. Uh same blue are the revisions, red is language that's being removed. And our last um approval on this was in December of 2016 for the chair. Where did we get the recommended language updates? Is it K model policy? >> All of these are C model policies. Um the ones that had to do with devices are Teli model policies. which holds a lot of weight has a nice ring to it. Telky model policy. I know on my from my standpoint I have um no questions on this. So, uh, I'd like to make a motion to move the revised policy 0521, equal opportunity non-discrimination to the full board for consideration. >> So, move and question hearing none. All those in favor? >> I motion passes. Oh, that brings us to new business
021that we're doing great. Almost half and half. Well, actually, considering we started a little bit later, we're doing like we're running on time. Okay, lots of notes. Okay, so I will say um before we hop into new business, I did find the quarterly key policy updates super helpful in just explaining the rationale behind some of these policy updates. And so it's a really I found it to be a really helpful resource. Um our first agenda item under new business is bylaw 9321 time base and notice of meeting. Um so BPS we last review uh revised this in 20 or 2004. Cabe updated model by uh so CABE updated the model bylaw to align with re recent statutory updates um in the Freedom of Information Act regarding public agency meetings. Um this revision authorizes electronic participation
022allowing boards to conduct meetings in person remote hybrid hybrid as an option. Um some key updates that they really highlighted and included in this revision is um those who are virtual are considered present within the meeting. Um and that's for quorum purposes. Um they have full voting rights as long there is a specification as long as they can be heard by everyone by all the participants and the and the public. Uh this uh these changes really ensure transparency and public a access specific uh notice requiring uh clear public access. So they have to be able to know how to log into the meeting um see when the time is. So it's really ensuring that there's clear access to the public. uh they there is a specification in here that when it's hybrid or virtual um
023it is required that all votes be taken by roll call unless it's a unanimous so that would be important I think for our board to really adopt this practice and routinely follow that and then the meeting they do delineate in there that uh the meeting is suspended did if we lose connection at all. There's a remote connection lost. The meeting has to be under suspension. I liked it. I thought it was very comprehensive and provided a lot like how they included the definitions of remote hybrid. Sure. Um I'm just questioning why um the section that states when the meeting will be held the first Wednesday of each month beginning at 7 p.m. why that was seek through the chair. So the only reason why I did remove that for now is because at our last
024regular board meeting we did discuss about having a special meeting of moving the time. So I did not want that policy to be written as such and then we would have to go back and revise the language and everything. Um and also in the cave policy that is actually not in there. So that was specific to whoever wrote this policy previously. So does that mean that say for instance the chair can just call the meeting at 6:00 p.m. regardless of No, because there still has to be it's very specific as to the notice that has to be given day, right? I think what I'm trying to get at is say I say tomorrow it's decided that from now on the meetings are to be held at 6:00 p.m. Does that mean that's a go? We
025well we would have to like that first paragraph that we file it with the city clerk and we do that with a year's worth of meetings. So the way we file it with the city clerk's office would be >> so >> how we would have the meeting which is why now we would have to sort of amend with the city clerk's office to move it from 7:00 to 6:00. Um but let even if we did that but kept this clause in there then we would still be in violation of our own policy because of the time change. But no one could arbitrarily say from this point forward I am going to change the time and okay and we also have to give notice to the public even though we have it um on file with
026the city clerk's office >> and is that something that the board as a board we vote on or >> for the um >> for a time change? >> Okay. because we we do vote um in advance of the regular board meetings going to the city clerks. We get the we get the we get the schedules and we do go up. >> Okay. As far as I've been on the board, it's been seven, you know, right? >> Okay. The time was included in our bylaws when we reconstructed meetings I think in 2019 so that they were on Wednesdays. Previously some meetings were on different days of the week and it made it difficult for staff and parents to have a predictable time. I'm comfortable with how it's written. Um I think it's a great question and
027I think it is really important um for the public to know that the meeting dates and times are planned out a year ahead. They have to be approved. The board has to vote on vote on them. I'm just making change my mic. Um, for me, one other thing that makes me comfortable with that is it does allow us if something did need to be changed. Um, there's mechanisms there there's a process in place for that. Uh, but we wouldn't have to go back and then revise policy if something needed to be changed. and it is on file with the city clerk's office. So, we couldn't just change the meeting one month because we didn't want it on a Wednesday. So, that is further like insulating. So, through the chair, I did speak with the town
028clerk's office and we do have to put it on as an agenda item for it to be presented as a revisment to the remainder of the 2026 meetings. Um, if it would go through and get approved, then I would send a revised notice to the town clerk and it would be posted with them as well as a revision on our end on our website and all of our meeting times and calendar invitations. >> Thank you. That Thank you for outlining that and looking into all that. So, that would be specific if the board did decide to change the time from 7 to 6, which we're not doing right now. I just want to be very clear about We just wanted to know what the process would be. That's why we reached out to another discussion
029right now. Let's make a motion to move the revised by law 9321 time please and notice of meeting to full for consideration. >> So moved second >> although any or questions? >> I am going to going to vote no on it but I know it'll pass but that you know my reasons. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And I you know I'd encourage you to definitely bring up you know your questions as you know to the full board and we can talk through it or get other perspective from the board. Absolutely. All those in favor >> I two yes one no. Motion passes. Um so that brings us to policy 5141.4 for child abuse and neglect. This is another mandated policy. Uh and it has been updated by CAD to reflect uh some of the legislative changes
030from our 24 and 26 legislative sessions. Um which really includes in which included a formalization of mandated report preliminary inquiries. Um, there's some language that really clarifies that school administration are authorized to conduct very brief immediate inquiries to determine if reasonable pause to suspect exists um before triggering uh that reporting window to begin. Um, and it is like I did look language is very clear that it's strictly prohibited to uh, you know, limited inquiries because you don't ever want to be reinterviewing or interviewing a child about what they might have experienced. Um, so I really appreciated that language in the policy. Uh it also restores good faith and unity um which really protects any reporters from uh being liable in any way. Um and BPS um our policy last revised in December of 2016 and
031it was a keep model state. Um so from my standpoint um I really appreciate and I I am good with this policy as is. Just to put a little plug in there, there is statewide uh best practice trainings. It's called minimal facts for discoverers um which really helps discover which are mandated reporters in uh how to respond when a suspicion arises. And um I know a lot of school districts have participated in the training. Um it's a free training. I just know it's it is offered statewide through one of our um statewide agencies. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. like to make a motion to move the revised policy 5141.4 child abuse and neglect to the full board for consideration. >> So moved to second discussion, questions. I agree. I think it was really well put
032together, comprehensive. Yeah. All those in favor? >> I motion passes. LC 1312 public complaints. Um so public complaints this is this was identified in our cave audit. Um, we needed to modify the policy and update the regulation. It was last approved in March of 2017. There was also I have a actually a question on this. So, we have policy 1312 public complaints. Then there's also a form. >> So, I think the form is what they updated in that cave policy. Uh, highlight number three. Oh, that was the main update they said. >> So, I actually I thought that that was really helpful. >> Um, yeah, I actually I really I liked the form. Um, I thought it would be helpful. Um they did describe it as a really helpful administrative tool to really implement and
033support this policy. Um and it helps to ensure that all public concerns are addressed in a very systemic systematic way and a structured process. Um, this policy, um, I believe it came to kind of came back to light, um, with the recent librarymandated policies that were recently updated by Cave and by us here in the in the district. Um, and it clarifies the process for filing a grievance between the library and then kind of those general Um, and it re it does help to reinforce the district's chain of command. So, uh, it's just a really clear structured process and a transparent, uh, path for community members to see, okay, I file this complaint um, and then these are the steps that follow. It's just lost. Pull up that egg. The one that has the form
034just be lost in all stuff. >> Thank you. Can I I'd like to make a motion to move policy 1312 public complaints to the full board for consideration. >> So moved. Okay. discussion question. Yes, I'm seeing read. I kind of fast on um you have is the one that we currently have as a regulation. And then this one does not >> uh we don't do regulations this the regulations written by the superintendent. It doesn't >> I know some of the policies that we receive sometimes the regulations. >> Yeah. I didn't know um if that would be I can ask her to look at the regulation that's there and let us know what changes they'll need. >> Okay, >> you're right. Sometimes >> we've had that conversation like is it going to be a part of
035our practice to vote on a regulation? Sometimes it's recommended that certain policies accompany the regulation that we vote on. I know it would be I don't know if CIC would have any guidance like if if I can ask Jod. Yeah. What do a majority of people do? >> Right. And I don't know if there's our our board attorney sometimes recommends that uh a Greg is part of what we vote on. But I think that was a really skillful question. um kind >> to be consistent you know sometimes and then this time I didn't see it >> and what was interesting was this cave sample did not come with a regulation so I don't know where that regulation >> came from >> correct because usually when they do give me a a sample policy they will
036give me a regulation attached with it and say this is a sample regulation that you can choose to adopt so >> then the superintendent It is charged. >> Yeah. >> Um discussion or question hearing. None. All those in favor I passes. Policy 5112 ages of attendance admissions placement. This is another mandated policy. It was identified in our key audit um specifically that we need to change the entrance date from January to September. who was last revised and updated in October of 2011. So this policy is just around the kindergarten um when when a child can uh attend kindergarten and that's just to go in line with the state law >> through the chair. I also just want to clarify that the next agenda item is 511 which is our current admission policy. So originally CA
037had two separate policies 511 and 5112. They combined them into 5112. >> So we need to resend the 511 >> the next agenda item. Yes. So you'll see that there's a lot of additions to the 5112 because of that change. the chair. Deputy Superintendent Hawk, I know that you've been very active in these changes and we're fortunate to have you be such an active participant um in these conversations and updates. In your review of this policy, do you feel like it really covered the legislative changes or statutory requirements? Yes, it does do an excellent job of really solidifying everything that's happening. And if um our district didn't have a policy, it um then we'd have to rely on the old one and the old one is just not appropriate anymore. And I wouldn't want us
038to do that going into next year. Can I have a motion to move revised policy 5112 ages of attendance admissions placement to the full board for consideration? >> So moved. >> Any further discussion or questions? >> Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I >> Oh, I did. >> I'm so sorry. I didn't hear you. I I know you needed more time. >> Motion passes. >> I'm sorry. >> Just awkward. >> The next two policies are um So >> we have to go to 5.5 first. >> Oh, policy 5111. Um can I have a motion to resend this policy as it is encompassed in policy 5112? Um >> yes, I have a motion. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Any further discussion or question hearing? None. All those in favor? I motion passes. >> You
039want to take it away, Mary? The next one. I just wanted to say the next two are specific to special education. I wanted to thank Dr. Martino for staying and um work all the work she did on these and she will be here if you have any questions. So both actually Dr. Martino would you I'm I am sure that there's going to be questions. Would Yeah. would you mind coming up? Um, both are mandated policies. Um, and we're reviewing pain model pain sample model policies. The first one is policy 6159 individualized educational program to in your perspective. Do you feel like this is a really comprehensive policy that supports our district's needs? >> Uh, yes. Actually, I was thrilled when she asked me to collaborate with her on these. Um, 6159 really does walk through
040what an individual education plan is. Um, it actually speaks a lot about the parents rights. Um, and you'll see a lot of language that is mirrored from the parents uh handbook and then procedural safeguards, but it even goes into depth about who's required to be in a meeting, what the parent has the right to accept or disagree with. Um, and it just has a a variety of different aspects of law that anybody in special education loves, but it's very succinct in supporting what a child and their family has rights to. I might just add Leven is specific about what an IEP must include and gives very specific uh requirements which you know as a director I'd love to previous to this policy, what had the district in the way of any policies, what what's the
041baseline? Um I don't know this exact number but I can share with you that previous u policies I think were robust for the time. I think what I'm seeing more however is more definition more examples of what has been required um and a lot more around parent examples of what their rights are. Um in the next policy you'll see some specific call outs as well that were not previously included. So I see this is more of an enhanced version with additional um requirements so that everyone's clear that this is not only uh policy or what expectation but it's aligned very closely with state and federal guidelines. >> Thank you. We have a motion to move policy 6159 individualized education program a piece to the full board for consideration to be approved. >> Second. >> Any
042further discussion or question? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I motion passes. That brings us to our last agenda item, policy 6171, special education program and evaluation. And this is another mandated policy. >> Chair. >> Yes. Um, I was going to say, you know, this one I think also just speaks to how students can become eligible for special education services. It talks about the evaluation process. The only fallout in this one was um so many years ago when a specific learning disability was redefined, can't even remember what year, but I want to say it's at least 10 to 15 years ago. They made it clear that you can no longer use a discrepancy model. So some of us who practice more than 20some years ago when we were trained, you looked for a 22
043pointy. Yeah. >> Um so they took that away. However, um we still see people in practice attempting to use that. So in this policy, they do a specific call out saying that you cannot use that discrepancy and that we have to use a scientific research based approach and showing that chat's not responding to those interventions and that needs to be part of the criteria that is used. So that's the particular change of this. >> Were there any other notable changes aside from that? >> There really weren't. Um, I kind of mentioned uh to superintendent deputy superintendent that I was surprised that they did a call out for specific learning disability yet a number of other categories have been updated but I understand Kab's reasoning because people are still using an older model. The only other
044update is they just updated all the Connecticut general statutes that align to the policy being in place. I'd like to make a motion or can I have a motion to move policy 6171 special education program and evaluation to the full board for consideration to be approved as written. So moved second. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I motion passes. Um that brings us to the end of our agenda. With no other business, can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. Seven. We are return.