001But because I'm like on. I apologize. It is 603. I'd like to call the pal and rise from the pledge of allegiance. to our August to our >> second discussion. All those in favor >> I should receive any public comment either in person or online tonight. >> No, we have lot people lining up out the door. brings us to number four. Discussion and revision of policy and regulation 1324 fundraising. So for the fundraising policy, this we started discussion on this at our last brother and I believe that Cra is here um to update us. We had a very um complex uh fundraising policy here in Bristol and since that uh has come out a has actually recommended a much more brief uh fundraising policy, one in which fundraising people go through to uh superintendent and
002we noted that other towns such as Madison, they uh they took on this policy in 2022. Our current policy sound check. Sierra, can you hear us when we speak um closer to our mics or is that still not working? Well, >> that's so much better. Thank you so much. I'm sorry. >> No problem. Glad you can hear us. We'll be sure to talk. Really? We'll we'll project into our mics. So for the fundraising policy after speaking with K was there to adopt [Music] model policy. >> Yes. Sierra, did you um have that discussion heard of that? >> The CABE policy? Um I was sent something by um by Chair Pawns, but I don't know if that was the CAB policy. I haven't received anything directly from from Iris or Mary um regarding a a a
003CAB policy. I so I don't know if it's this I don't know if this is the same that you guys are looking at right now. >> I believe it is. I have a question. Um I was under the impression it was um number eight that we were focusing on for the fundraiser policy 1 through 24. And I thought it was just the revised language of number eight diving a little bit deeper into um the fundraising as far as different teams. >> That is what I presented last time. Yes, you are you are correct. I had I wasn't um the last presentation was just in particular to um the um item eight um in the policy. It wasn't regarding the entire policy as a whole. was just line eight and in particular the line that states
004um fundraising for uniforms, equipments, um and personal items. Okay. from shampoos. We made that. It was recommended that we adopted model policy and that so that we don't need to revise what we currently have. that their recommendation was to adopt the team model policy. Do we have that? I Yeah, I can read it to you. It's very brief. Um says students may engage in raising funds for school sponsored activities subject to the provision of regulations to be developed by the superintendent. No such fundraising activities may involve doortodoor solicitation in the community by students. The board of education will not be responsible for any fundraising activities that are not approved in accordance with the procedures set forth in the policy and the accompanying regulations. Any fundraising activities must comply with all applicable state and federal laws
005and regulations, including those provisions relating to the sale of healthy foods and beverages on school grounds or student sponsored activities. And then it references the Connecticut General Statute 10-215 for me that I really appreciate it. Would it be possible us to get copies then kind of dissect a little bit more um tonight before we discuss it a little bit more? decide to take action Yes, think they're all going to be waiting conversation. Um I wait I think while we're waiting on those copies if we can move down to um number seven that might be uh one of the quicker ones to to tackle. Um, and then we could hop back over to number four if the committee is okay with that. Um, so I'd like to make a motion to table number four and move
006to item number seven, curriculum design development. >> Second. All those in favor? Hi. >> It is very tiny. Thank you. So, the policy we're looking at is 6140 curriculum design, development, and revision. Uh we're bringing this policy forward based on a conversation that we had at student achievement committee just last week. As we were thinking about our curriculum revision process, the board typically reads the any new curriculum that's presented or any curriculum that has been what I would call had a major curriculum revision reads first that curriculum and student achievement committee and then they make the recommendation to the full board for approval. What that does is make the process a little bit more intensive and that we have to have a formal presentation to the board of education before we're really working with teachers
007on the curriculum itself. As you know, uh what you have on paper is all with the is done with the best intentions, but as you begin to implement that to fully support the uh outcomes that we're looking for with students, teachers and our curriculum supervisors have conversations about how they might need to adjust the curriculum to make it even stronger. We want it to be a living breathing kind of document where or having a conversation and agreeing upon the change. In my mind, that would be a minor curricular revision. We do want to record those minor curricular revisions and have them approved. But to do that with the regularity that the teachers are having conversations would mean that our student achievement committee agendas would be quite lengthy and it could delay our implementation of some
008of the changes that we think are um good for for our students. So, we're proposing a change that would allow the student achievement committee to approve minor changes, minor curricular revisions as a as the subcommittee of the board and do so on an annual basis. It does still preserve the opportunity for the student achievement committee to move any minor revisions to the full board for approval. So you'll see in the document that I shared with you that paragraph that's underlined is the suggested revision. Would you like me to read it aloud? I have my readers on so I could read it aloud if that helps. So, we're proposing a change to uh to the second paragraph so that it would read, "The student achievement committee, a subcommittee of the board of education, will review and
009approve all curriculum prior to referral to the full board for final approval. As part of the curriculum implementation process, teachers and supervisors will revisit the approved curriculum to ensure it is optimized for student learning. Minor revisions to standards, learning targets, common learning experiences, and assessments are expected to be part of the educational process. These revisions will be recorded by the curriculum supervisor and presented annually to the student achievement committee, which may approve them at the committee level or refer them to the full board. major curriculum revisions, including the introduction of a new course, the adoption of new Connecticut or national standards, or changes to more than half of the course content will be reviewed first by the student achievement committee and then referred to the full board for approval. Answer any questions that you have.
010>> Thank you so much for that and presenting the policy. Um say I know we do have um some student achievement committee uh commissioners here as well. So if anyone would like to weigh in I am totally okay with that. Um I don't want to speak on top of but I will kind of summarize that uh in general uh one thing I walked away from from our conversation was we understand that these minor curriculum revisions were going to come up and that we just wanted the board to have an opportunity to weigh on weigh in on any proposed policy changes um and not keep that decision siloed in um so for me it's something that I support and I think it makesense I I welcome anybody who has any thought on this. >> Just one
011question. Um the area where it reads um that it's presented annually to the student achievement committee that precedes the language which creates the flexibility which may approve them at the committee level or refer them to the full board. My only question is, do you anticipate that that information would be isolated to just annually to the student achievement committee or might there be times throughout the school year that you have to present something unexpected? And if so, um would this language preclude? I don't think it would preclude um if there was something that was a more dramatic change, a unit being replaced or there was let's say um something might have let's say let's imagine a world where a unit might be challenged and we might need to address that and you'd want to do that
012with the input of the community. We would certainly bring that forward. uh there wouldn't be anything that would preclude us from doing that even though it wouldn't have been wouldn't qualify as a major revision since it wouldn't be 50% of the course >> right and I think what you know what I was thinking is as well as the work that you all are doing you present know monthly but then that first meeting essentially um is that what's meant here presented annually >> so our as we're implementing the curriculum we're gathering generally our curriculum supervisor ers are meeting uh at least once per trimester for any elementary or uh middle school curriculum and then they're meeting at that kind of cadence either by the quarter or the semester especially for new courses with te with teams
013of teachers. Uh that like reporting back to student achievement committee and such a quick turnaround I think would be challenging to be able to summarize and present all of that information to you. So it would be that they're keeping record of all those suggested changes and then reporting those out at the end of the school year. >> I just wanted to make sure that where at least the revisions will be reported and presented annually that that's not limiting your view or your team to just >> Yeah, I appreciate that. >> You know that one moment in time that you still can present things throughout the year. >> Absolutely. And at any time any commissioner with any question can ask to review a curriculum. So I don't see that there's a any um anything that would
014prohibit that from happening there. >> Great. >> Thank you chair for um uh allowing some of the other committee members to come here tonight. Um uh I just like to say that I'm in support be because when the um director of curriculum chief of academics sorry I see um is asking for a change and I don't see that it infringes on the ability for the committee to make their own decision um uh despite whether or not it's considered major or minor and also it doesn't prohibit any you know parental involvement in either in either one. Um, the only other question I had, I'm sorry, uh, in here in the underlying language where it says and, uh, major curriculum revisions including the introduction of a new course, the adoption of new Connecticut national standards or changes
015to more than half the course content. I would also um, consider statutory um, revisions or requirements and maybe that was implied in the adoption of new Connecticut or national standards. But I, as um you're aware, sometimes the state has dictated curriculum to the um local school districts and we had to adopt it in its entirety. Um and there's not much we can do if that happens again. But um when there's no local voice in that type of curriculum decision, I would rather see an opportunity for the public to be able to come forward and be aware of it. um in both our committee meeting if they chose and then at the full board because when that one of them I can remember um when we wanted to enhance the curriculum by adding I believe it
016was um Commissioner Carlson had said you know we had the we had the kitchens that we're working on and why why don't we introduce a piece of like the culinary food component and you know we really weren't allowed to change anything and um usually By design, the curriculum isn't supposed to be dictated by the state. Frameworks are, but not the curriculum in its entirety. So unless that's implied here, I just would rather see any mandatory statutory revisions also go to the full board just so we have a broader audience that's aware that our we were constrained by some of those limitations. >> I think that's a great addition for my from my perspective. That was the black and latino studies is what you're referring to as a course that we needed to adopt. But there
017are also other elements that are now required statutoily to include firearm safety you've heard about in uh student achievement in the past. So I think that is a good suggestion too. I don't know. I think it's better to be explicit than implicit. So >> pros are not that already in regards to that potential addiction that we need to actually hear a little bit. I don't think so. even under um if a course was required to be legislatively included, if it was a statutory requirement for us to develop a course, it would be a new course for us anyway. So, I think it would come up under that. But I think as we're looking at some of the newer requirements, there's some policies under I mean some statutory regulations around units of instruction for other courses.
018So, it wouldn't necessarily be a full course revision. So, I think I would add I think that makes sense to add that statement as well. >> And if the chair would allow um I desperately tried to get here on time for the public comment which happens like within the first five minutes of the meeting um in regards to the if you would allow just one slight comment from me about the fundraising curriculum because I had asked for that to be on the agenda in like May. >> I will. Can we circle back around to that? >> Uh, we'll finish with this >> and then circle back around to that if that's all right. >> That that works out. Thank you very much. >> So, the suggestion got to That's >> musical chairs to go with
019my pencil. Uh, we're looking at the sentence that says, "Major curriculum revisions, including the introduction of a new course, the adoption of new Connecticut or national standards, when changes to more than half of the course when there are changes to more than half of the course content, or when revisions are statutoily required, comma, will be reviewed first by student achievement committee and then referred to the full board for approval. I'll make motion discussion to policy 6140 in the amendments presented tonight. In addition to adding or staff or requisite or national standard Um changes to more than half of the course content static will be review first by student and then in favor. Hi. >> Hi. >> So, we are going to circle back about to discussion and provision of um policy 1324 fund or anything.
020And I did get the go-ahad commissioner Antonio uh I didn't indicate that she was running a little bit late. I am okay back to public comment. Um invite you up. Um I am going to opt for not reading the rules for public comment if you are okay with that. You want to hear a whole >> I think I know them. >> Okay. >> Awesome. So, just a little bit of background because I did um the timing of my request wasn't great because we were heading into the summer schedule and there wasn't um going to be a couple of meetings, but we were approached by some constituents to ask if the fundraising could be put back on could be put on the agenda mostly, I think, because of um some perceived restrictions about when they can
021raise money for extras and when they can't. and and that the the people that had approached us were involved in the programs that would benefit from um the fundraising efforts and also in consideration of the fact that um you know we we we had a lot of serious budget constraints. So if there are opportunities for people to be able to fund raise, they were looking for a little more latitude in that and I too was under the impression that um we were only looking at the part of the policy that would concentrate and allow for that and not replace the entire policy because I do think the fundraising policy was worked on quite a bit in the in some previous years. um and a lot was added to it and you know maybe there was
022you know some more regimented things around it um that I still think are probably pretty good um to keep in there. So, I don't the the reason why I had asked for fundraising to be on the agenda was just the background that certain constituents that were involved in athletics and theater had asked for it and that we look at it and the gist was to allow for um more opportunities for those teams or the arts to be able to do some fundraising when budget restrictions would prevent them from having the funds to do things. Um, but I didn't propose any specific language and I certainly wasn't proposing replacing the whole policy, but that was just I just want to give the the committee the background why I had asked for it to be considered by
023the committee. So, thanks. >> Yeah. So, so check your Oh, you got that. This is the K model policy. So, um, I gave you the cave model policy, the form that they recommend, and also Madison Connecticut's policy because they redid theirs in 2022. Ours was redone in 1972. So, that's why there are a lot of restrictions on there like can't collect cash, you can't check. like there's a lot different >> I was just the chair >> um so the regulation was adopted on July 5th 1972 we had revisions happen as recent as November 8 2000 so I think >> the regulation itself self was adopted a long time ago for this document. So I think that's what Mary was referring to um in in my um the reason why I was hang on one second.
024>> Oh, you can't hear me. Can you guys >> No one has ever said that ever. >> Can you hear Can you hear now? Much better. Thank you. I'm so sorry. So, um, just to one just clarification in case you didn't hear it. Regulation was adopted in 1972, but the policy was last revised November 8th of 2000. >> That's great. >> Which is still 20 26 years ago. So, it hasn't been really worked on in a while. But the meeting we had la when we brought this policy forward last time, it was in response to um many uh coaches and and parents reaching out and saying, "Listen, we need to be able to get our kids what they need." And um Sierra was amazing at the back to school uh meeting for athletics and and
025she met with a lot of different teams and and heard their concerns and and came forth with some suggestions for the regulation and uh in look in speaking with CABE um about their model policy, it doesn't include a regulation and our bylaws don't encourage regulations unless they're mandated by um state statutes. So to make things uh to simplify the process for the board to adopt the the model policy policy and to allow the superintendent and her team to create their own regulation is what I think we're leaning toward doing at this point because there's no purpose for us to have input on the operational side of things because that's the superintendent and our team's responsibility. So if we adopt this CAD policy, it provides that opportunity and it up it puts us up to date.
026Does the current do does it does it seem like the current policy that's in place it's almost becoming a barrier to serving serving the kids? >> I do believe it is a barrier and also I think that the budget situation that we're in right now um I remember Sierra uh coming to me April or May just wanting to have some vision of the fundraising as she was way ahead of this. Uh but it it really is a barrier. >> Thank you for sharing that. have another question. Um the re so was K's recommendation to adopt the policy not the regulation at this point? Yes. So, CAB recommends adopting the policy and our bylaws say that it's not typical to adopt a regulation only when mandated by law. So there's some regulations that are mandated and
027outside of that it's really typically not the board's role to operations Make a motion to adopt the cave model policy 1324 community relations fundraising activities. Second open it up to discussion. I have a question. So the regulation we are not touching at all. So that the revision of number eight on the regulation that we spoke about the last time that is not that we discussed we're replacing what was with what is suggested from K which is >> just a policy >> just okay so we have copies of the policy and regulation and so just to clarify Okay. No, my motion was just for the policy. The regulation was provided as a kind of a resource to us, but then up to administration to implement a regulation as they see fit their applications. >> Yes. Because
028of our situation, we we think it's best for the district to be able to have the flexibility to create a regulation that best fits the climate. And if we have a policy, they'll have that flexibility. which is typically everyone does the res the operational side but I can we can give a little a moment for further discussion if needed. chair. And just cursory comparison here, um the language that we currently have doesn't allow fundraising for the purchase of uniforms or jackets or other athletic equipment. the paid model policy actually has a little more flexibility. It's not limiting those items. That would be up to the discretion of superintendent and by way of this form that needs to be filled out. Um, I do like that there's a little more flexibility embedded um into this language
029um in in reference to like the intention that Commissioner Jantonio shared initially in response to constituents expressing some concern um to allowing to allow for more opportunities to fund raise when budgetary constraints sort of prevent purchases. Um, in the spirit of that concern, the cave model model policy language sort of meets that um need or desire um without limiting the scope of what the um fundraising is for and that would be up to the discretion operationally of the superintendent by way of this form. So I I just feel like this language here uh is less limiting the K model policy. I don't know. I'm comfortable moving to vote. Just one caution is and it's not really within our purview, but just thinking of concerns. Um just ensuring that there's some sort of parity. you know,
030some organizations, some sports organizations may have a greater ability to fundraise and just being mindful that um that could create a little bit of a disparity and but again that's the operational piece of it and I and I understand that's why I prefaced by saying it's not necessarily within our purview. Um, but I just can't stop that voice in my head from saying, you know, just being mindful and it it is something that we would see if it became an issue as a board and that we would have to um contend with, but just being mindful that it doesn't create this unintended disparity between um athletic organizations. So, >> Title N would prohibit. So, >> Right. Right. it it will pro title nine legally prohibits but it doesn't you know just doesn't mean that those
031things unintentionally don't happen that's why this internal I some of the discussions that happened um last time and um you know that I think we could just will reassure us is that the process will always include the director of athletics approving any fundraiser and anything they're fundraising for. So, it's not that we're allowing a team to fund raise for equipment or uniforms and at their own discretion and pick things. It would be if they needed those things, they would have to go through the athletic director to find out what exactly how much money they needed to fund raise to accomplish what was selected and available. and it would still be um the the school district's property. It wouldn't then become individual property of that fundraising and then not stay with the program. So if things
032will be exactly as they were in process, it's just the allowability of where the funding comes from. So if it hasn't been budgeted for and it's something that's needed, the ability exists for them for the teams to request permission to fund raise and then still follow the same process >> and that would that part would be in regulation. >> That would be the regulation which we don't have to adopt. motion to put it to vote. All those in favor? I >> I motion passes and it moves to the full board for review and >> is special revision of policy 6141 challenging curriculum. This was one of the item that was different from our last meeting that we didn't get to and I believe is part of our policy audit from my understanding. Our last meeting
033we have received out and are we looking at changes ever during our audit. So this one um although we didn't have a policy in place, I feel like we had all of the actions in place. Um so the policy I think will um easily come to fruition. the idea that uh eight and nine uh ninth graders um who may be eligible to take or enroll in advanced courses and programs and requirements that these students have an academic plan has been going on in Bristol for 15 to 20 years. Um the the ideas that we offer challenging classes um there's classes that we don't the basis of this program is that you not only do you offer classes that may help students who are struggling but you also offer classes that um bring children to a
034different level and then uh horse and there's classes advanced racing classes is even international doing all this. We just didn't have that option of LLC adopting this. >> Correct. So, this one was supposed to be adopted July um of 2020 20 like this was a mandate. Yes. So it's something that we need to make the motion It's curriculum based, so obviously I'm going to have an opinion. So, thank you for >> uh inviting me into the conversation. There's some language in the recommended policy that I find a little problematic and not in alignment with the language that was in the last policy 6141.51. The language of the policy that we talked about last time was about eliminating barriers in to get to challenging coursework. And you probably can see in some of the recommended language
035here uh from CABE that it seems to be much more restrictive. And I'll just give you a couple of examples. about that. They define the policy as it's uh written by CABE defines students criteria for being successful in challenging courses as as follows. Students who express success in advanced course courses or programs typically exhibit the following characteristics. reading at or above grade level, strong study skills, self-motivation, proficient oral and written communication skills, self-discipline to plan, organize, carry out tasks, an interest in self-directedness in the particular subject. Given the nature of the conversation that we had last time, uh identifying these characteristics that are um describing a student who could do well in a challenging course seems to me to be more restrictive. And so what I would recommend is changing that language to match the
036language that we have already discussed in the prior policy. The 6141.51 was based on high school courses. So some of the language would be different when you're thinking about middle school, but I think the thinking that we have behind both policies should be consistent. This also talks about identifying students um by their superior cognitive ability. I find that problematic and as an identification criteria for a access to rigorous force work. We wouldn't want an IQ test for example to be a definitive factor. So I have I took what was recommended and made some adjustments if you'd like to see that. >> Yes, please. So to show it I'm sorry it's so small but in order to show the track changes that's why it prints the size it is. So the first recommendation I would have
037is on the first page uh and replacing advanced academic classes in the four content areas of language arts, mathematics, social studies and science. change and replace advanced academic classes to offering rigorous coursework that allows us some flexibility. So, I appreciate the conversation that you just had on flexibility and uh fundraising. It would give us some flexibility in thinking about access to rigorous coursework across our middle school program. I also think uh there was a paragraph in the cave model policy uh that could be deleted to better match the language that was in the 6141. So you could see uh the language that's deleted at the bottom of that page for purposes of this policy and you could see that comment there. On the second page under criteria, I swapped the language that was in CABE's
038model policy with the policy of 6141.51 to be consistent with the criteria that we talked about the last time. So you might recognize the use multiple meth multiple methods by which a student may satisfy eligibility criteria for enrollment including but not limited to recommendations from teachers, administrators, school counselors, other school personnel including the input of students and parents and guardians. So it's just the same language that we agreed upon from the prior. Now here the cave model policy had a second set of criteria. I would recommend deleting that and just uh including based on the eligibility criteria within this policy so it refers back to that criteria. Thank you. Chair, >> I wonder if it would be helpful um for Miss Foron or for us to have like a a write up of the recommended
039um amendments. Unless I'm looking at something. Oh, >> I didn't have it in front of >> I was wondering because you look like you were flipping. I'm like I >> it was right here. >> I'm sorry about that. You you stepped up for a minute. >> Pause. I'm going to just do it. >> Sure. >> We have four minutes. >> Okay. >> I I mean those were the major changes you could see every all the replacement language. But I think my goal in looking at the language to this policy would be would be that it's in alignment with the policy that you had just approved last month for high school. we would want that same thinking to carry through to middle school. And so that's the nature of the changes that I would suggest. There
040is a motion resend my original motion and then going to I can amend it. Yeah. So I'm going to amend my original motion. Yeah. to adopt policy 6.2% I would I trust in these revisions. I I just I would like more time to look at them, but I certainly can do that between now and the full floor question. Hopefully the chair know in the two minutes that we have left the gifted and talented policy that doesn't seem we're going to get to. Do you see that these two are working sort of in concert with each other in terms of like reviewing or >> I that's not a policy that I've reviewed. I reviewed the the two that were related to curriculum based on my role. So I couldn't be able to speak to the that
041policy in particular. I could look at it before the next policy meeting. So to >> I was just thinking again for that >> you know keeping with the the language of the policy that was passed recently this one gifted and talented it's almost like they're they're interconnected >> and just want us to be mindful that there might be language we would want to see throughout those documents. Yes, I could say in this uh challenging curriculum policy, it does reference that you have to consider a student's giftedness as part of the criteria for challenging coursework. So, you do see that gifted uh identification is a part of this policy. I'm sure that they're overlapping. I didn't I know that um Mrs. Hawk has looked at that gifted and talented policy more than I have and maybe
042you could address that. >> Is it okay? I know this wasn't for would there be any concerns if we tabled it and them together without having this place or should we really move forward with this I mean we're we're two years out so if we go another month but we have something that we're really happy with because the policies are uh very different and I think I think the is really going to love the gift and talented one because it talks a lot about the exceptionally vetive people. Uh whereas gifted talent some focus more on achievement. So it is a really neat policy uh also statutoily mandated which we didn't necessarily see enough of I think in the current policy that that part of it. So I I love that that came >> Yeah. And
043I think it's really important that everybody aligns. So the recommendations to review. >> Okay. You agree. So going to amend my amended motion to move uh challenging curriculum policy and talent to table the amended motion that you made. and then we will move challenging curriculum policy and gifted and talented to our next policy meeting. I think it's important to put those two items first. Um they've gotten this will now be the third meeting that they're on so we can prioritize those two. Did you did you make a motion or no? I think that was Well, I'll second that motion if you made a motion. favor. >> I minutes have been 7:01.