Docstoc

2012 Legislative Report - CSU-AAUP

Document Sample
2012 Legislative Report - CSU-AAUP Powered By Docstoc
					     AMERICAN ASSOCIATION of
      UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS
The CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY
            CHAPTER

       2012 Legislative Report



                      Betty Gallo & Co.
                      May, 2012

                      Betty Gallo
                      Kate Robinson
                      Joe Grabarz
                      Brie Johnston

                  1
                                    PREFACE



The past several legislative sessions have been very active for CSU-AAUP.
Funding, labor agreements, restructuring, curriculum development and
administrative changes among other issues have all been significant challenges to
representing faculty at the State University System.

CSU-AAUP and Betty Gallo & Company have worked closely together with
supportive legislators to ensure that faculty interests were represented. In fact, the
past several sessions have seen a welcome increase in faculty involvement in
legislative advocacy efforts and an increased faculty awareness of legislative
processes and deepened relationships with legislators. Organizing for lobbying
days at the Capitol and around increased visits to campuses by legislators and
members of the Board of Regents has been a successful tool in working towards
our legislative goals. Numerous and timely action alerts have also been valuable to
our collective efforts.

While we haven’t succeeded in everything that we have asked for, we have
significantly impacted legislation in our favor and we have improved the standing
of CSU-AAUP faculty as a valuable resource in higher education discussions.

The legislation discussed in this report represents a major effort by CSU-AAUP
staff and faculty, Betty Gallo & Company staff and supportive legislators to shape
events in favor of CSU-AAUP members and to make the State’s system of public
higher education better for everyone involved. We have also included several
general education bills at the end of this report because of the interest of several
CSU-AAUP members and because of the increasing connection between
secondary and higher education in Connecticut.

We at Betty Gallo & Company are proud and pleased to have been a part of this
effort and look forward to working together on future challenges and opportunities.




                                          2
I. Higher Education Bills

SB 40: AN ACT CONCERNING OPEN ACCESS TO COLLEGE LEVEL
COURSES. Passed. Public Act 12-40 signed by the Governor.


This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee at the start of the legislative session and was considered a priority of
the Co-Chairs. It was a particular priority of Senator Beth Bye (D-West Hartford)
who has had a longstanding interest in the area. It was supported by Co-Chair Rep
Roberta Willis (D-Lakeville) in part to improve upon the Co-Chairs working
relationship and in part in exchange for support for reconsidering the Board of
Regents for Higher Education membership structure (SB42). The Co-Chairs began
the session with the introduction of these two bills and it was clear that with this
agreement that some form of each bill would pass.

This bill signed by the Governor requires the Connecticut State University System
(CSUS) and the community-technical colleges (CTC), beginning by the 2014 fall
semester, to offer (1) certain students remedial support embedded with the
corresponding entry level course in a college-level program and (2) certain other
students an intensive college readiness program. It generally prohibits other forms
of remedial education after that time.

The bill also requires public high schools, CSUS, and CTC to align their curricula
by the fall semester of 2016. Beginning by the 2014-2015 school year, it requires
early assessment of eighth and tenth grade students' college readiness and the
sharing of such results. Lastly, it requires a report on (1) the transition of working
adults to higher education and (2) the bill's impact on CSUS and CTC programs for
deaf and hearing-impaired students.

The bill requires BOR, in consultation with the P-20 Council, to report to the
Higher Education Committee by the fall semester of 2014 regarding its
recommendations concerning the successful transition of adults returning to or first
enrolling in a higher education program at CSUS or CTC after spending time in the
workforce. The report must also address the bill's implications for CSUS or CTC
programs for deaf and hearing-impaired students.

REMEDIAL SUPPORT



                                          3
This bill requires CSUS and CTC, beginning by the 2014 fall semester, to offer
certain students remedial support embedded with the corresponding entry level
course in a college-level program. They must offer this support (1) to students who
they determine, through use of multiple commonly accepted measures of skill
level, are likely to succeed in college level work with supplemental support and (2)
during the same semester as, and in conjunction with, the entry level course.

For students determined to be below the skill level needed for success in college-
level work, the bill requires CSUS and CTC, beginning by the 2014 fall semester,
to offer an intensive college readiness program before the next semester
(presumably the semester after the determination is made). It requires these
students to complete the intensive readiness program before receiving embedded
remedial support. The Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR) must develop
options for such a program in consultation with its faculty advisory committee and
the state's P-20 Council.

The bill generally prohibits CSUS and CTC, beginning by the 2014 fall semester,
from offering remedial support or courses not embedded with an entry level course
or part of an intensive readiness program. However, it allows institutions to offer a
student one semester of non-embedded remedial support if (1) it is intended to
advance the student toward a degree and (2) the program is approved by BOR.

CURRICULAR ALIGNMENT AND STUDENT ASSESSMENT

The bill requires public high schools and CSUS and CTC to align their curricula by
the fall semester of 2016. The alignment must enable the successful completion of
high school mathematics and language arts curricula, as described in Connecticut's
common core state standards to be the indicator of college readiness. CSUS and
CTC may use available evaluation instruments to assess the college readiness of
adults enrolling in higher education after spending time in the workforce.

Beginning by the 2014-2015 school year, the bill requires BOR, in consultation
with the P-20 Council, to ensure that each CSUS and CTC institution works with
the state Department of Education and local and regional school districts to (1) use
available evaluation methods to assess eighth and tenth grade students' college
readiness and (2) share the results with students, parents or legal guardians, and
schools.

REPORT


                                         4
The bill requires BOR, in consultation with the P-20 Council, to report to the
Higher Education Committee by the fall semester of 2014 regarding its
recommendations concerning the successful transition of adults returning to or first
enrolling in a higher education program at CSUS or CTC after spending time in the
workforce. The report must also address the bill's implications for CSUS or CTC
programs for deaf and hearing-impaired students.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Various within the bill.

At the public hearing, Mr. Robert A. Kennedy, President, Board of Regents,
ConnSCU and Dr. David Levinson, Interim Vice President for the Connecticut
Community Colleges of the Board of Regents ConnSCU, presented the data and
concerns of their institutions. Testifying in support of the bill were Mr. Steve
Cohen, President, Congress of Connecticut Community Colleges, Professor Peter
Denegre, Developmental English, Tunxis Community College, Mr. David C-H
Johnston, Education 'R We, Mr. David Downes, Vice President, Connecticut
Association for Adult and Continuing Education and Director of Adult and
Continuing Education for the West Hartford Public Schools, Mr. Jesse Parrott,
Student, MCC, Intern, State Rep Roberta Willis, Member of Connecticut National
Guard, and Professor Rita Malenczyk, Professor of English, ECSU.

 Testifying in opposition to the bill as written were Dr. Leon Brin, Professor,
Mathematics Department, SCSU, Dr. Kevin Buterbaugh, Professor, Dept. of
Political Science, SCSU, Professor Sharon Gusky, Biology Professor, NWCCC,
Mr. Thomas Hodgkin, Professor of English, NWCCC and Chairman of the
Connecticut Community College Center for Training, Professor Julian Madison,
Department of History, SCSU, Council Member, SCSU AAUP, Dr. Jason B.
Jones, President, CCSU AAUP, Associate Professor of English, CCSU, Ms.
Jacqueline Perron, Student, UCONN, Southern Connecticut State University,
School of Health and Human Services.

We and the CSUS faculty continued to lobby the Committee members about our
concerns, particularly concerns about the timeframe for implementation, its effect
on already successful models and its applicability to some subject areas. Fact
sheets were developed, letters and emails sent meeting held to express our
concerns to legislators on the Higher Education Committee. We kept in contact
with the Co-Chairs to encourage changes to the bill.

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement committee introduced
substitute language which detailed and incorporated concepts, such as using

                                         5
“multiple commonly accepted measures of skill level” to assess student's needs and
to create intensive, embedded support while the student is in an introductory
course. It calls on the P-20 Council and the Board of Regents to develop these
intensive programs, as well as, implementing college readiness testing in high
schools and for returning or first adult learners and to share those results with
parents or guardians, in the case of high school students. A few of the concerns
expressed by CSU-AAUP members at the public hearing were taken into
consideration in this substitute language but not enough to significantly improve
the bill.

The substitute language was favorably adopted by the Committee by a vote of 18
to 0. The bill was sent to the Senate.

We continued to work with the Co-Chairs to improve the bill. An ongoing concern
of CSU-AAUP was whether there would be funding for the bill and in the end
there would be an adjustment to CCSU’s block grant to cover any cost.

In the Senate, Senate Amendment Schedule ‘A’ (LCO3151) was offered by Sen.
Bye (D-West Hartford), Sen. Boucher (R-Westport), and Rep. Willis (D-
Lakeville), Senate Amendment “A” (1) adds the exception for non-embedded
remedial support, (2) adds certain consultation requirements, (3) removes a
provision requiring open access to college level courses for students graduating
from high school in or after May 2014, (4) delays, from 2014 to 2016, the required
deadline for curricular alignment, (5) adds the reporting requirement concerning
working adults, and (6) makes technical changes.

The Amendment incorporated many of the suggestions put forward by CSU-
AAUP and was a sincere attempt to make the bill workable for CSUS. Of the five
areas we suggested for needed improvement in the bill, four were addressed in part
or whole. It also incorporates several provisions from HB5028 on alignment. It
was adopted by voice vote, whereupon the bill was referred to the Appropriations
Committee.

The bill was returned to the Senate by a vote of 38 to 0 of the Appropriations
Committee.

In the Senate, Amendment Schedule ‘B’ (LCO3601), a bipartisan compromise
amendment, was introduced by Sen. Bye, Sen. Boucher, Rep. Willis, Rep. LeGeyt
(R-Avon), and Rep. Sawyer (R-Andover). Amendment ‘B’ eliminates the bill's
applicability to UConn and Charter Oak State College, adds the provision
concerning programs for deaf and hearing-impaired students, and makes several
                                      6
technical changes. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 33 to 3, with Sen. Welch
(R-Bristol), Sen. Roraback (R-Litchfield), and Sen. Guglielmo (R-Coventry)
voting ‘No.’


The bill was then sent to the House where it passed as amended in concurrence by
a vote of 127 to 12, following is the roll call vote:
Y         ABERCROMBIE          N     LEMAR              N       TERCYAK      Y     KLARIDES


Y         ALBIS                N     LESSER         Y           THOMPSON     Y     KOKORUDA


Y         ALDARONDO        Y         LOPES          Y           TONG         Y     KUPCHICK


    N     AYALA                    X LUXENBERG      Y           URBAN        Y     LABRIOLA


        X BACKER, T.       Y         LYDDY          Y           VERRENGIA    Y     LAVIELLE


Y         BARAM                N     MCCRORY        Y           VILLANO      Y     LEGEYT


Y         BECKER, B.       Y         MEGNA                  X WALKER         Y     MILLER, L.


Y         BERGER           Y         MIKUTEL        Y           WIDLITZ      Y     MINER


        X BOUKUS           Y         MILLER, P.     Y           WILLIS           X MOLGANO


Y         BUTLER               N     MILLER, P.B.   Y           WRIGHT, C.   Y     NOUJAIM


Y         CANDELARIA, J.   Y         MORIN          Y           WRIGHT, E.   Y     O'NEILL


Y         CLEMONS              N     MORRIS         Y           ZALASKI      Y     PERILLO


Y         COOK                     X MOUKAWSHER                              Y     PISCOPO


Y         CRAWFORD         Y         MUSHINSKY                               Y     REBIMBAS


Y         DARGAN           Y         NAFIS                                   Y     RIGBY


Y         DAVIS, P.        Y         NARDELLO       Y           ACKERT       Y     ROWE


    N     DILLON           Y         NICASTRO       Y           ADINOLFI     Y     SAMPSON


        X ESPOSITO         Y         O'BRIEN, E.    Y           ALBERTS      Y     SAWYER


Y         FAWCETT          Y         PERONE         Y           AMAN         Y     SCRIBNER


Y         FLEISCHMANN      Y         REED           Y           BACCHIOCHI   Y     SHABAN


Y         FLEXER           Y         REYNOLDS       Y           BETTS        Y     SIMANSKI


Y         FOX, D.          Y         RILEY          Y           CAFERO       Y     SMITH


Y         FOX, G.          Y         RITTER, E.     Y           CAMILLO      Y     SRINIVASAN


        X FRITZ            Y         RITTER, M.     Y           CANDELORA    Y     WADSWORTH




                                                            7
Y     GENGA             Y       ROBLES       Y       CARPINO        Y     WILLIAMS


Y     GENTILE               N   ROJAS        Y       CARTER         Y     WOOD


Y     GONZALEZ          Y       ROLDAN       Y       CHAPIN         Y     YACCARINO


Y     GROGINS           Y       ROSE         Y       COUTU


Y     GUERRERA          Y       ROVERO       Y       D'AMELIO


Y     HADDAD            Y       ROY          Y       DAVIS, C.


    X HAMM                  N   SANCHEZ      Y       FLOREN         Y     DONOVAN (SPKR)


Y     HENNESSY              N   SANTIAGO     Y       FREY


Y     HEWETT            Y       SAYERS       Y       GIBBONS


Y     HOLDER-WINFIELD   Y       SCHOFIELD    Y       GIEGLER


    X HURLBURT          Y       SERRA        Y       GIULIANO       Y     ALTOBELLO (DEP)


Y     JANOWSKI          Y       SHARKEY      Y       GREENE         Y     ARESIMOWICZ (DEP)


Y     JOHNSON               N   STALLWORTH   Y       HETHERINGTON   Y     GODFREY (DEP)


Y     JUTILA            Y       STEINBERG    Y       HOVEY              X KIRKLEY-BEY (DEP)


Y     KINER             Y       TABORSAK     Y       HOYDICK            X ORANGE (DEP)


Y     LARSON            Y       TALLARITA    Y       HWANG          Y     RYAN (DEP)




Since the passage of the bill we have spoken with Michael Meotti, Executive Vice
President of the Connecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education, about
implementation and he said that his interpretation of the language of the bill was
that it gave enough flexibility to allow for the continuance of existing successful
models of remediation that may not fit the new model and that he would be
allowed to consider the applicability of areas like math to the overall scheme
outlined in the bill.
Additionally, there is an understanding that some funds will be available from the
Department of Education to cover some of the cost of remediation changes and
alignment work. The CSUS block grant was reduced but it is due to the expected
savings from the consolidation and a portion of budget savings allocated to all
areas of the Board of Regent’s budget.

HB 5028: AN ACT CONCERNING THE ALIGNMENT OF COMMON
CORE STATE STANDARDS WITH COLLEGE CURRICULUM. Died (See
Above)


                                                 8
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee and co-sponsored by Rep. Willis (D-Lakeville). It would have required
local and regional boards of education, in collaboration with the Board of Regents
for Higher Education (BOR) and the UConn Board of Trustees, to develop a plan
to align Connecticut's common core state standards with college-level programs at
Connecticut public higher education institutions. The standards and programs must
be aligned within one year of Connecticut's implementation of the standards.

The bill also required the State Department of Education (SDE), by July 1, 2013, in
collaboration with BOR and the UConn Board of Trustees, to develop a pilot
program to incorporate the common standards into priority school district
curricula. For the 2013-2014 through the 2017-2018 school years, the program
would have had to align the districts' curricula with college-level programs at
Connecticut public higher education institutions.

Under the pilot program, the local or regional board of education for a priority
school district would have been required to partner with BOR and the UConn
Board of Trustees to (1) evaluate and align curricula, (2) test grade 11 students
using a college readiness assessment adopted or developed by SDE, (3) use the
results to assess college readiness, and (4) offer a support plan for grade 12
students found to be unready for college. The local or regional board must annually
report the test results to SDE, BOR, and UConn. The bill does not include a
reporting deadline.

This bill had an effective date of July 1, 2012, except for the provisions affecting
priority school districts, which would have been effective upon passage.

Testifying in support of the bill at the public hearing were Dr. David Levinson,
Board of Regents of Higher Education, ConnSCU, Liz Dupont-Diehl, Policy
Director, CT Association for Human Services (CAHS), David Johnston, Director,
Education R' We, Dr. Peter J. Nicholls, Provost, University of Connecticut, David
Downes, Vice President, Connecticut Association for Adult and Continuing
Education (CAACE), and Southern Connecticut State University. There was no
testimony submitted in opposition.

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee adopted
substitute language which changed the grade level for college readiness testing
from grade eleven to grade 10. This would allow students to receive testing results
early enough in their education to address deficits and to better prepare for college.
The substitute language was favorably reported to the Education Committee by a

                                          9
vote of 16 to 3, with Rep. Ackert (R-Columbia), Rep. LeGeyt (R-Avon), and Rep.
Sawyer (R-Andover) voting no.

The Education Committee favorably reported the substitute bill to the
Appropriations Committee by a vote of 23 to 3, with Rep. Giuliano (R-Old
Saybrook), Rep. Hovey (R-Monroe), and Rep. LeGeyt voting no. The bill was
referred to the Appropriations Committee where substitute language was proposed
which deletes subsection (c) from Section 2, as funds are not included in the FY
budget for the $20,000 grant. The Committee passed the substitute language by a
vote of 42 to 12, with the following Republicans voting ‘Yes’ with the Democrats:
Rep. Carpino (R-Cromwell), Rep. Hwang (R-Fairfield), Rep. Klarides (R-
Woodbridge), Rep. Lavielle (R-Norwalk), Rep. Rigby (R-Norfolk), Rep.
Wadsworth (R-Farmington), and Sen. Welch (R-Bristol).

The bill was then sent to the House where it died with no further action taken
however, as noted above, several of the provisions of the bill were added into
SB40.

SB 42: AN ACT CONCERNING THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR
MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE
BOARD OF REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION. Passed. Public Act 12-
7. Signed by the Governor May 2, 2012.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee. It was supported by both Co-Chairs but was a legislative priority of
Rep Willis (D-Lakeville). As discussed above, it was an attempt by the Co-Chairs
to work collaboratively on their priority bills. The bill was primarily a response to
an unsatisfactory advisory committee selection process in the Technical
Community College System and Charter Oak. It was generally acknowledged that
the CSU System had a process that was fair and open. There was also a need to
improve upon the language creating the advisory committee that had been
unsatisfactorily written up during and passed in the 2011 session. The original
concept was proposed by us during the discussions on reorganization in 2011.

Our interest in this bill was to support the improvement of the advisory committee
but to protect against the diminishment of the voice of the teaching faculty.

The bill as signed into law expands, from seven members to 10, the size of the
faculty advisory committee to the Board of Regents for Higher Education. It adds
one administrative faculty member each from the Connecticut State University

                                         10
System, the community-technical colleges, and Charter Oak State College. It
requires that these administrative faculty members provide direct student services.
It specifies that the other committee members must be teaching faculty.

The bill also requires that committee members and alternates be elected, by
October 1, 2013, through a uniform, fair, and open system-wide election by each
constituent unit's faculty governance body. For Charter Oak, it requires election by
a majority vote of its academic council. Current law requires a system-wide
election by each constituent unit's faculty senate. Presumably, the committee's
current members can serve the remainder of their terms, which by law are for two
years. The bill also specifies that labor union participation in the elections is not
required. It has an effective date of July 1, 2012.

Dr. Stephen Adair, Professor of Sociology and Chair of the Sociology Department,
Central Connecticut State University, Steven Cohen, President, Congress of
Connecticut Community Colleges, Dr. Kristine Larsen, Charter Oak State College,
Dean of Faculty, Mr. James LoMonaco, President, State University Organization
of Administrative Faculty, Ms. Barbara Richards, and Professor of Sociology at
Housatonic Community College all testified in favor of improvements to the
process. Testifying in strong opposition to the bill was Mr. Dennis Bogusky, AFT
Connecticut.

We had numerous discussions with representatives of other unions who had
varying opinions about the bill. Most were opposed to the original bill making no
inclusion of nonteaching faculty. We also met regularly with both Co-Chairs to
discuss any developments and we were assured each time that our interests were
being protected. They shared with us proposed changes to the original bill which
we analyzed and passed on. Most of the changes were similar to recommendations
that we made.

The committee proposed substitute language (LCO 1870) which allows for the
election of one administrative faculty, such as a financial aid representative, from
each of the following: the Connecticut State University System, community
colleges, and Charter Oak State College. In part, this was due to concern by Rep.
Pam Sawyer (R-Bolton) and other Committee members that librarians and others
have a voice. It also specifies that union representatives are not required to be
involved in the election process. Thirdly, it adds the words “fair and open” with
regard to the system-wide election of faculty senate members. The title of the bill
was re-drafted after being raised as a concept during the January 31st committee


                                         11
meeting. We circulated a statement by CSU-AAUP in support of the substitute
language.

The substitute language was adopted by a vote of 19 to 0, and the bill was passed
on to the Senate.

In the Senate, the bill was passed without amendments by a vote of 36 to 0, it was
then sent to the House.

We continued to monitor the bill for any unfriendly amendments or substitute
language. The House passed the bill in concurrence without amendments by a vote
of 146 to 0.

The bill became Public Act 12-7, and was signed by the Governor on May 2nd
2012.

SB 154: AN ACT CONCERNING STATE EMPLOYEES AND VIOLENCE
AND ABUSIVE CONDUCT IN THE WORKPLACE. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Labor and Public Employees Committee and co-
sponsored by Rep. Hewett (D-New London).

We circulated to Labor Committee members a resolution of CSU-AAUP and spoke
to Committee members about our interest in the bill.

Testifying on the bill at the public hearing were Vijay Nair, American Association
of University Professors, CSU; Robyn Kaplan-Cho, CEA; PCSW; Lori Pelletier,
CT AFL-CIO; DAS; as well as several state employees from various agencies.

 It died in Committee after a Public Hearing was held. The Labor Committee
concentrated on their major bills this session and this bill was not a priority. The
Committee met only a few times and many bills died on their agenda on their
reporting out deadline.


SB 242: AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY ON THE RELEASE OF
FACULTY FROM CERTAIN TEACHING REQUIREMENTS. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee. This bill would have proposed a study to investigate the varied
                                          12
reasons that faculty are released from teaching classes. The goal of the study was
to determine how to increase access for higher education students to classes taught
by full-time faculty.

The bill was a response in part to concerns expressed by students about the large
number of classes taught by adjunct faculty. There were also concerns expressed
by faculty during last year's reorganization about whether other faculty would be
released from teaching classes and ongoing advocacy by faculty for more full-time
positions. Some legislators were of the misunderstanding that the number of full-
time faculty could be increased by changing release time practices. The Office of
Legislative Reasearch (OLR) reported in November of 2011, at the request of an
unnamed legislator, that the impact at CSUS of release time was $4.5 million and
that it was covered under collective bargaining.

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee passed the bill
by a vote of 18 to 0.

We distribed a fact sheet prepared by CSU-AAUP staff on release time and on
budget implications and spoke with legislators about our concerns with this
approach to increase classroom time.

The bill was then sent to the Senate, where it died with no action taken on it. It is
likely that this issue will surface again and we should plan to have to educate
legislators on our views on this.

SB 299: AN ACT CONCERNING MINOR REVISIONS TO THE
EDUCATION STATUTES. Passed. Public Act 12-120. Awaiting Governor’s
Signature.

This bill is the 2012 version of the standard technical revisions bill used in each
session to make minor changes to education statutes that are noncontroversial and
technical in nature. It contains a few minor changes effecting higher education.

It was introduced by the Education Committee and was co-sponsored by Sen.
Musto (D-Trumbull), Sen. Harp (D-New Haven), Rep. Alberts (R-Woodstock),
and Rep. O’Neil (R-Southbury). It requires regional education service centers
(RESCs) that arrange for criminal background checks of school personnel to retain
fingerprints and other identifying information for four years; limits enhancement
grants to youth service bureaus (YSBs) to the amount appropriated for the grants
and requires proportional grant reductions if that amount is not sufficient to pay the

                                          13
full grants; updates and broadens the duties of school medical advisors; allows
Three Rivers Community College to operate an interdistrict magnet school and
receive state magnet school grants; gives the Hartford school district, as the
successor operator of Great Path Academy magnet school on behalf of Manchester
Community College (MCC), the same state operating grants and allows it to charge
sending districts the same tuition as its predecessor; makes changes to conform
with laws enacted or taking effect in 2011, including those relating to school
construction, responsibility for early childhood programs, school breakfast
program eligibility, and an increase in the high school dropout age; expands and
revises the membership of the Special Education and Head Start advisory councils;
changes deadlines and other requirements for certain education-related reports;
expressly allows the State Department of Education (SDE) to administer the Even
Start Family Literacy Program; and makes other minor and technical changes and
eliminates obsolete language.

The bill is effective upon passage, except for provisions relating to the following,
which take effect July 1, 2012: YSB grants; school medical advisors; the Three
Rivers magnet school; and reporting on efforts to reduce racial, ethnic, and
economic isolation in schools.

At the public hearing, Bryan D. Holmes, Lt Col, USAF, Danbury High School
Junior ROTC and Senator Michael A. McLachlan, Assistant Minority Leader
testified in support. Testifying in opposition to the bill was Dr. Linette Branham,
Connecticut Education Association.

The Education Committee adopted substitute language which clarified language in
section 21 to reflect the intent of Committee. The Education Committee favorably
reported the bill to the Senate by a vote of 31 to 0.

The Senate referred the bill to the Appropriations Committee, which voted 47 to 0
to favorably report the bill back to the Senate. Senate Amendment Schedule ‘A’
was offered by Sen. Stillman (D-Waterford) and Rep. Fleischman (West Hartford).
Senate ‘A’ adds the provisions relating to school medical advisors; the Three
Rivers Community College magnet school; and required reports on school district
efforts to reduce racial, ethnic and economic isolation and by Leadership,
Education, and Athletics in Partnership (LEAP) program grantees. It also makes
additional changes to conform to the increase in the high school dropout age and
changes the deadline for appointments to the Special Education Advisory Council.
The amendment was adopted by voice vote, and the bill passed the Senate by a
unanimous vote.

                                         14
In the House, Senate Amendment Schedule ‘A’ was adopted by voice vote. The
bill was then placed on the Consent Calendar, and passed in concurrence.

SB 384: AN ACT CONCERNING TEACHER PREPARATION. Passed.
Special Act 12-3. Awaiting Governor’s Signature.

This bill was intended to be a vehicle for major changes to teacher preparation in
the State but with the crush of legislative business, realizing that they had many
other issues to work out this session and with a greater understanding of the
complexity of the issue, the Higher Education Committee made this bill a study
bill.

It was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee, and co-sponsored by Rep. Davis (D-Milford), Rep. Giuliano (R-Old
Saybrook), Rep. Ackert (R-Coventry), Sen. Boucher (R-Wilton), Rep. Molgano
(R-Stamford), Rep. Lavielle (R-Wilton), Sen. Harp (D-New Haven), and Sen.
Musto (D-Trumbull).

Testifying at the public hearing for the bill were Mr. Stefan Pryor, Commissioner,
State Board of Education; Mr. Joseph J. Cirasuolo, Ed. D, Executive Director,
CAPSS; Mr. Edward W. Malin, Ph. D, Interim Dean, Farrington College, Sacred
Heart University; Ms. Sharon Palmer, President, AFT Connecticut; and Ms.
Linette Branham, Director, Policy and Professional Practice, CEA.

The Higher Education Committee adopted substitute language which makes
significant changes from the original bill, instead calling on the State Board of
Education, in consultation with the Board of Regents for Higher Education to study
requirements proposed from the original bill, make recommendations, and report
back to the committees of cognizance with the results of the study on April 1,
2013.



The study must cover at least the following issues (1) every student enrolled in a
program of teacher preparation leading to a professional certificate to spend a
minimum number of hours student teaching, beginning in the student's first year in
such program and continuing every year thereafter that such student is enrolled in
such program, including, but not limited to, a certain number of hours working
with special education and gifted students, (2) any candidate entering such a
program of teacher preparation to possess a minimum cumulative grade point

                                         15
average of 3.00, (3) any candidate entering such a program of teacher preparation
to meet the requirements of the academic program in the subject area in which
such student plans to teach, and (4) each institution of higher education offering
such a program of teacher preparation to annually provide each candidate in such
program with information regarding subject and geographic areas in which a
teacher shortage exists, as determined by the Commissioner of Education in
accordance with section 10-8b of the general statutes, and encourage each such
candidate to take teaching jobs in such subject and geographic areas. Not later than
April 1, 2013, the State Board of Education shall report on such study and deliver a
comprehensive set of recommendations regarding such issues to the Department of
Education, the Board of Regents for Higher Education and, in accordance with the
provisions of section 11-4a of the general statutes, the joint standing committee of
the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to higher education

The Committee voted to favorably report the bill to the Senate by a vote of 20 to 0.

The Senate referred the bill to the Education Committee by a vote of 31 to 0,
whereupon the bill was sent back to the Senate. In the Senate Sen. Bye (D-West
Hartford), Rep. Willis (D-Lakeville), and Sen. Boucher (R-Wilton) offered Senate
Amendment Schedule ‘A.’ Senate ‘A’ included the University of Connecticut in
the bill. The amendment was adopted by voice vote, and the bill as amended was
passed by a vote of 36 to 0.

The bill was sent to the House where Senate Amendment Schedule ‘A’ was
adopted, and the bill as amended was passed in concurrence on the Consent
Calendar.


HB 5029: AN ACT CONCERNING COLLEGE READINESS
ASSESSMENTS. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee, where it died after a Public Hearing was held.


The bill if passed would have required each local and regional board of education
to require each pupil enrolled in the tenth grade in a public school to undergo an
assessment of college readiness in the spring of sophomore year.



                                         16
 If any pupil who undergoes a college readiness assessment demonstrates any
shortcomings in such pupil's college readiness, the pupil, the school and the pupil's
parent or legal guardian shall collaborate to develop a remediation plan to ensure
that the pupil is ready for college at the time of graduation from high school.

At the public hearing there was much discussion of the wisdom of another test, of
the value of another local mandate and of the best time to test.

The bill wasn’t taken up for a vote but this issue will be revisited again in
upcoming sessions.

HB 5030: AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
GENERAL EDUCATION CORE OF COURSES TO ALLOW FOR THE
SEAMLESS TRANSFER FROM THE REGIONAL COMMUNITY-
TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM TO THE CONNECTICUT STATE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT.
Passed. Public Act 12-31. Signed by the Governor May 14, 2012.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee. It requires the Connecticut State University System (CSUS) and the
community-technical college system (CTC) to develop and implement, by July 1,
2013, a general education core of courses. The core must comprise at least 30
academic credits and be offered in CSUS's and CTC's liberal arts and sciences
programs and any other degree program designated as a transfer program. If a
student earns academic credits from the core and subsequently transfers to the
other system or a different institution in the same system, the bill requires those
credits to count towards that system's core requirements.

The final bill requires teaching faculty from CSUS and CTC to be included in the
core's development and implementation. The faculty must be elected in a uniform,
system-wide election by the faculty senates representing CSUS and CTC. It has an
effective date of July 1, 2012.

Testifying in support of the bill was Mr. Robert A Kennedy, President, Board of
Regents for Higher Education, Dr. Louise Feroe, Board of Regents for Higher
Education, ConnSCU, Dr. Thomas R. Burkholder, Professor of Chemistry, Central
Connecticut State University, Mr. Steve Cohen, President of the Connecticut
Congress of Community Colleges and Professor, Norwalk Community College,
Mr. Bob Fernandez, Legislative Director, Congress of Connecticut Community
Colleges, Dr. George Kain, Associate Professor of Justice and Law, Western

                                          17
Connecticut State University, Dr. Elizabeth King Keenan, Professor and BSW
Coordinator at Southern Connecticut State Universities, Dr. M.J. Gerald Lesley,
Professor & Chair of Chemistry, Southern Connecticut State University, Julian
Madison, Associate Professor of History, SCSU, Peter Nicholls, Provost of the
University of Connecticut, Professor Mike Shea, Chair of the English Department,
Southern Connecticut State University. Testifying in opposition to the bill were
Mr. Eric Bergenn, Student Body President and Student at Central Connecticut
State University, Dr. Jason B. Jones, Associate Professor of English, Central
Connecticut State University, Dr. Steve Larocco, Professor of English, Southern
Connecticut State University,Dr. Mary Ann Mahony, Associate Professor of
History, Central Connecticut State University, and Dr. Robert S. Wolff, Professor
of History at Central Connecticut State University.

After the hearing we met with the Co-Chairs and discussed our concerns around
the language of the bill. We provided documentation to support our position. The
discussion of this bill included many of the issues we brought forward in the
debate on other bills this session including ensuring that faculty have a voice in the
discussion and that readiness, alignment and course requirements are complicated
issues that should be studied before changes are made legislatively.

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee proposed
substitute language that included some of our suggestions. The substitute language
includes faculty members, duly elected faculty senate members, from community
colleges, CSU System, and UCONN in the development and implementation of a
general education core of courses. Another bill SB40 moved back the date of
CORE implementation to 2016 on our suggestion. The Committee passed the
substitute language by a vote of 16 to 0, and it was sent to the House.

In the House, Sen. Bye (D-West Hartford), Rep. Willis (D-Lakeville), Rep. Legeyt
(R-Avon) offered House Amendment Schedule ‘A’ which made technical changes.
House Amendment ‘A’ was adopted by voice vote. The bill passed the House as
amended by a vote of 142 to 0, whereupon it was sent to the Senate. In the Senate,
House Amendment Schedule ‘A’ was adopted and the bill passed in concurrence
on the Consent Calendar.

The bill became Public Act 12-31 and was signed by the Governor on May 14th,
2012.

HB 5031: AN ACT CONCERNING SEXUAL VIOLENCE ON COLLEGE
CAMPUSES. Passed. Public Act 12-78. Awaiting Governor’s Signature.
                                         18
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee and co-sponsored by Rep. Adinolfi (R-Cheshire), Rep. Rovero (D-
Dayville), Rep. Willis (D-Lakeville), Rep. Morris (D-Norwalk), Rep. Dillon (D-
New Haven), Sen. LeBeau (D-East Hartford), Rep. Candelaria (D-New Haven),
and Rep. Gonzalez (D-Hartford). This bill requires public and private higher
education institutions to adopt and disclose one or more policies on sexual assault
and intimate partner violence. The policies must include provisions for (1)
providing information to students about their options for assistance if they are
victims of such violence, (2) disciplinary procedures, and (3) possible sanctions.
Institutions must include the policies in their uniform campus crime report, which
is produced annually and made available to students, employees, and applicants for
admission.

The bill also requires such institutions, within existing budgetary resources, to
offer (1) sexual assault and intimate partner violence primary prevention and
awareness programming for all students and (2) ongoing prevention and awareness
campaigns.

The bill requires higher education institutions to adopt and disclose one or more
policies on sexual assault and intimate partner violence. Under the bill, “sexual
assault” means 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th degree sexual assault, as well as aggravated 1st
degree sexual assault and 3rd degree sexual assault with a firearm. “Intimate partner
violence” means any physical or sexual harm against an individual by a current or
former spouse or by a partner in a dating relationship that results from (1) sexual
assault; (2) sexual assault in a spousal or cohabiting relationship; and (3) domestic
violence (which could include various crimes) and 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree stalking.
These crimes are defined as in current law.

The policies must have a provision for giving contact information for and, if
requested, professional assistance to students in accessing and using, campus, local
advocacy, counseling, health, and mental health services.

The policies must also provide written information about a victim's rights to (1)
notify law enforcement and receive assistance from campus authorities in making
the notification and (2) obtain a protective order, apply for a temporary restraining
order, or seek enforcement of an existing order. Such orders include: (1) standing
criminal protective orders; (2) protective orders issued in cases of stalking,
harassment, sexual assault, risk of injury to, or impairing the morals of, a child; (3)
temporary restraining orders or protective orders prohibiting the harassment of a


                                          19
witness; (4) relief from physical abuse by a family or household member or person
in a dating relationship; and (5) family violence protective orders.

Additionally, the policies must include provisions for: (1) notifying students of
available assistance from the institution and reasonably available options for
changing academic, living, campus transportation, or working situations; (2)
honoring lawful or temporary restraining orders; (3) disclosing the range of
possible sanctions that the institution may impose; (4) detailing the procedures to
follow after the commission of such violence, including people or agencies to
contact and information on the importance of preserving physical evidence; and (5)
summarizing the institution's disciplinary procedures.

The summary of the institution's disciplinary procedures must include clear
statements advising students that (1) victims can request that disciplinary
proceedings begin promptly and (2) the proceedings must (a) be conducted by an
official trained in issues relating to sexual assault and intimate partner violence and
(b) use the preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., whether it is more likely
than not that the alleged incident occurred).

Additionally, the summary must include clear statements providing that both the
victim and the accused are entitled to: (1) be accompanied to any meeting or
proceeding by an advisor or support person of their choice, provided that the
advisor or support person does not cause the meeting to be delayed or postponed;
(2) present evidence and witnesses on their behalf; (3) be informed in writing of
the results of the disciplinary proceeding no later than one business day after it
concludes; and (4) have their identities kept confidential, except as necessary to
carry out a disciplinary proceeding or as permitted under state or federal law.

The bill requires institutions, within existing budgetary resources, to offer sexual
assault and intimate partner violence primary prevention and awareness
programming for all students. The programming must (1) explain the definition of
consent in sexual relationships and (2) provide information on the reporting of
such assaults and violence, bystander intervention, and risk reduction. Institutions
must also offer ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns.

Under the bill, “awareness programming” is designed to communicate the
prevalence of sexual assault and intimate partner violence, including the nature and
number of cases reported at each institution in the preceding three calendar years.
“Primary prevention programming” is intended to prevent such assault and


                                          20
violence before they occur by changing social norms and through other
approaches.

It has an effective date of July 1, 2012.

Testifying in support of the bill at the public hearing were Barbara O'Connor,
Director of Public Safety and the Chief of Police, University of CT, Michelle Cruz,
Esq., CT State Victim Advocate, The Permanent Commission on the Status of
Women, Marichris Cariaga, UConn Student, Ann Fabian, Executive Director,
Rape Crisis Center of Milford, Anna Doroghazi, Director of Public Policy &
Communication, CT Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc, Dana Ilowite, Student,
University of New Haven, Jennifer Wenderoth, Campus Advocate, New Britain
and Hartford Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Krystal Rich, Adult Advocate, Sexual
Assault Crisis Service of New Britain, Megan Zoglio, Student, University of New
Haven, Susan Schnitzer, Director of Grants and Program Administration, Center
for Women and Families of Eastern Fairfield County, Heather Francisco, Adult
Advocate, Safe Haven of Greater Waterbury Sexual Assault Crisis Center, Melanie
Danyliw, Director of Training and Program Development & Monica Sievel, MS,
Campus Advocate, Women's Center of Greater Danbury, New Haven, Bethany
Hamilton, Prevention and Training Coordinator, ConnSACS, Ingrid Pasten,
Student, Sacred Heart University, & Volunteer with The Center for Sexual Assault
Crisis Counseling and Education, Jessica Champagne, College Advocate, The
Rape Crisis Center of Milford, Krista Kingsbury, Student, CCSU, Mary DeLucia,
Sexual Assault Adult Advocate for the Susan B. Anthony Project, Tracy Guglieri,
Counselor, The Center for Sexual Assault Crisis Counseling and Education,
Stamford, CT, and Samantha Bayuk, Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Advocate, Center for Women and Families of Eastern Fairfield County. Testifying
in opposition was Judith B. Greiman, Connecticut Conference of Independent
Colleges (CCIC), on the basis that these practices are already in place.

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee proposed
substitute language which changed “Accuser” to “victim” to match the
terminology that is in the current State statute. The words “Accused perpetrator”
have been changed to “accused”. The word “employee” has been removed from
the bill. The concern was that inclusion of employees would mean they would be
covered in cases of intimate partner violence and that is not the intent of this bill.
Also, a technical change was added to protect the confidentiality of the victim or
the accused. The Committee passed the substitute language by a vote of 18 to 0,
whereupon the bill was sent to the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee
passed the bill by a vote of 45 to 0.

                                            21
The bill was sent to the House, where it was referred to the Appropriations
Committee. The Appropriations Committee voted to favorably return the bill to
the House by a vote of 47 to 0.

The House passed the bill by a vote of 146 to 0, whereupon it was sent to the
Senate. The Senate passed the bill in concurrence on the Consent Calendar.


HB 5403: AN ACT PROHIBITING LOBBYING BY STATE EMPLOYEES
ON STATE TIME. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Labor and Public Employees Committee, where it
died after a Public Hearing was held, with no further action taken.


SB 28: AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE GOVERNOR'S
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING AN ANNUAL REPORT ON
HIGHER EDUCATION. Passed. Signed by Governor on May 2, 2012.

This bill was introduced on behalf of the Governor by Speaker Donovan (D-
Meriden), Rep. Sharkey (D-Hamden), Sen. Williams (D-Brooklyn), and Sen.
Looney (D-New Haven), with 11 co-sponsors. This bill requires the executive
director of the Office of Financial and Academic Affairs for Higher Education to
annually report to the Higher Education and Appropriations committees on where
Connecticut fits in state, regional, and national higher education trends. The report
must be based on data and information the office collects and includes trends on
expenditures, funding, enrollment, faculty and staff positions, cost sharing, and
student financial aid.

At the public hearing, Mr. Benjamin Barnes, Secretary, Office of Policy and
Management, testified with his concerns about moving this kind of survey from the
Office of Financial and Academic Affairs to the Department of Higher Education.
Testifying in opposition to the bill at the public hearing were Rev. Jeffrey Von
Arx, S.J, President, Fairfield University, Chair, Connecticut Conference of
Independent Colleges, Ms. Judith Greiman, Connecticut Conference of
Independent Colleges, Mr. John Gudvangen, Director of Financial Aid, Wesleyan
University, Mr. James F. Jones, Jr, President, Trinity College, Mrs. Elaine Solinga,
Director, Financial Aid, Connecticut College, and Mr. Dominic Yoia, Sr. Director
of Financial Aid, Quinnipiac University.


                                         22
The Higher Education Committee adopted substitute language which requires the
executive director of the Office of Financial and Academic Affairs for Higher
Education to annually report, to the joint standing committees of the General
Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to higher education and
appropriations and the budgets of state agencies on state, regional and national
trends regarding Connecticut higher education, including, but not limited to,
expenditures, funding, enrollment, faculty and staff positions, cost sharing and
student financial aid. The new language requires the Office of Financial and
Academic Affairs for Higher Education to collect such data and information as it
deems necessary for the development of such annual report. The substitute
language was favorably reported to the Senate by a vote of 19 to 1, with Rep.
Dillon (D-New Haven), casting the only ‘No’ vote.

The Senate adopted Senate Amendment Schedule ‘A’ by voice vote. Amendment
‘A’ was put forth by the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Higher Education
and Employment Advancement Committee. It adds a start date of on or before
March 1st, 2013 for the study. The bill as amended was placed on the Consent
Calendar and passed on to the House.

In the House, Senate Amendment Schedule ‘A’ was adopted, and the bill as
amended was passed in concurrence by a vote of 147 to 0.

The bill became Public Act 12-10, and was signed by the Governor on May 2nd.

HB 5235 (File No. 98): AN ACT CONCERNING AN EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT
TO INSPECT, COPY OR DISPUTE THE CONTENTS OF HIS OR HER
PERSONNEL FILE.

This bill was introduced by the Labor and Public Employees Committee. It makes
several changes to the law that regulates how an employer must maintain
and make accessible to an employee his or her personnel file. It (1) specifies
how quickly an employer must provide a current or former employee with
access to his or her file, (2) requires employers to provide employees with
copies of documentation of any disciplinary action or termination, and (3)
requires employers to notify employees that they can include a written
statement in their personnel file disagreeing with the employer's discipline,
evaluation, or termination of the employee. It has an effective date of
October 1, 2012.


                                       23
Testifying in support of the bill at the public hearing was Lisa Levy, Greater
Hartford Legal Aid, Staff Attorney. Testifying in opposition was the National
Federation of Independent Business, and Kia F. Murrell, from CBIA.

The Labor and Public Employees Committee proposed substitute language which
clarifies the timelines provided under the bill for delivery of the personnel files and
disciplinary notices. The committee passed the substitute bill by a vote of 8 to 3,
with Rep. Miner (R-Litchfield), Rep. Rigby (R-Norfolk), and Rep. Guglielmo (R-
Ashford), voting ‘No.’

HB 5514: AN ACT CONCERNING VARIOUS REVISIONS TO THE
PUBLIC HEALTH STATUTES. Passed. Public Act 12-

This bill is a version of a bill that is submitted each session to make what are
supposed to be minor, noncontroversial adjustments to State public health statutes.
The bill was amended right before passage with a provision on AED training in
Higher Education. Such a requirement has been in discussion for several years.

This bill was introduced by the Public Health Committee and was co-sponsored by
Rep. Kokoruda (R-Madison), Rep. Paul Davis (D-Orange), Rep. Albis (D-East
Haven), Rep. Srinivasan (R-Glastonbury), Rep. Carpino (R-Cromwell), Rep.
Tercyak (D-New Britain) and Rep. Molgano (R-Stamford).

The bill makes numerous substantive changes to Department of Public Health
(DPH)-related statutes and programs including requiring at least one automatic
external defibrillator (AED) at each higher education institution's athletic
department, and at least one person trained in AED use and in cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) to be on premises during intercollegiate sport practices,
training, or competition.

It also makes other minor, technical, and conforming changes. The effective date
will be October 1, 2012

Department of Public Health Commissioner, Jewel Mullen, testified in support of
the bill with exception to Sections 14 and 15 of the, which contain provisions to
allow emancipated minors and certified homeless youth access to birth certificates.
Also testifying in support of the bill at the public hearing were John Bailey, State
Director of Government Relations, American Heart Association; John Cottrell,
Chief Operating Officer, Council of Churches of Greater Bridgeport; Kristen
Granatek, Director, Project REACH; Louis Iannotti, North Haven and Stacey
Violante-Cote, Director, Teen Legal Advocacy Clinic. Testifying in opposition
                                          24
were Elizabeth Gara, Executive Director, CT Water Works Association (CWWA);
Joe Moore, President of the International Health, Racquet and Sportsclub
Association (IHRSA) and Susan Israel, MD.

The Public Health Committee passed the bill unanimously (26 to 0) with substitute
language that makes technical changes, delineates the definition of certified
homeless youth and outlines the process through which they may request their
birth certificate.

HB 5514 was sent to the House where it was amended by House Schedule ‘A’ and
‘B’. Amendment ‘A’ was a strike-all amendment offered by Rep. Elizabeth Ritter
(D-Quaker Hill) and Sen. Gerratana (D-New Britain).

Section 16 of the bill creates language that requires the athletic department of each
institution of higher education to develop and implement a policy concerning the
use and availability of an automatic external defibrillator during intercollegiate
sport practice, training and competition.

Amendment ‘A’ was adopted by voice vote.

Amendment ‘B’ was offered by Rep. Elizabeth Ritter (D-Quaker Hill), Sen.
Gerratana (D-New Britain), Rep. Perillo (R-Shelton) and Sen. Welch (R-Bristol).
It adds five sections to the bill, and was adopted by voice vote. The effective dates
for the first four sections were ‘upon passage’, and October 1, 2012 for the final
section of the bill. A summary of the sections is posted below.

Section 501 addresses vending stand operators eligible for membership in the
states’ retirement system, Section 502 outlines prorated paid sick leave for an
employee of the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, Sections
503 and 504 outline the prorated paid sick leave and other time off with pay for an
employee of the Department of Developmental Services, Section 505 streamlines
the language around legal name change. Amendment schedule ‘B’ was adopted by
voice vote.

A roll call vote on the underlying bill as amended by House ‘A’ and ‘B’ was taken,
and it passed the House unanimously with a vote of 150 to 0. The bill was then
taken up by the Senate for consideration. It was placed on the consent calendar
and also passed that chamber unanimously with a vote of 36 to 0.



                                         25
II. The Budget

In Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management Ben Barnes’ presentation on
the budget this session he talked about the difficulties presented by the spending
cap in the next few fiscal years. In FY14 a current services budget would be $649.5
million over the cap. In 2016 it would be $1.3 billion over the cap. He also
proposed to exempt from the spending cap pension contributions in excess of the
annually required contributions.

HB 5014: AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO STATE
EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
JUNE 30, 2013. DIED.(The Budget passed as emergency certified bill HB5557-
see below)

This bill was the budget and introduced on behalf of the Governor by Speaker
Donovan (D-Meriden), Rep. Sharkey (D-Hamden), Sen. Williams (D-Brooklyn),
and Sen. Looney (D-New Haven). It increases the FY 13 original appropriation by
$328.1 million. This results in a total of $20.7 billion in FY 13 (for twelve
appropriated funds). Funding is provided in state agencies to meet their operating
costs and make grant payments. The budget bill also includes: 1) language
concerning certain accounts; 2) the use of carry forward funding; and 3)
implementing language pertaining to various appropriations.

Some of the Highlights from the Governor’s Budget included:
   $4 million for 500 school readiness slots
   $3 million for Early Childcare Professional Development
   $22.9 million for a “Commissioner’s Network to “turn-around low
     performing schools
   $1 million for additional faculty at UConn.
   Reduced the CICS program by $10 million to provide financial incentives to
     top graduates to teach in low performing districts.
   Combined Office of Human Rights and Opportunities and Office of
     Protection and Advocacy

The Appropriation Hearings were somewhat smaller than in the past. The big
changes in the budget came in the area of Education and Housing. So most of the
testimony was in favor of preserving existing programs even programs the
Governor had not cut. The Appropriations Budget restored a number of the cuts the
                                        26
Governor had made in the Human Services Programs including restoring the cuts
made to LIA. It reflected the Education Committee’s version of the Education
Reform package and eliminated almost all of the Governor’s proposed
consolidations.

Below are the Changes that Appropriations made to the Governor’s Budget we
thought you would be interested in.

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
   CHRO will be transferred to the Judicial Branch for administrative purposes
    only
   Reduce Disparity Study Funding – funding of 500,000 was provided in both
    FY 12 and FY 13 for a study of the state’s supplier diversity program to
    determine whether it is achieving the goal of helping small contractors and
    minority business enterprises (MBEs) obtain state contracts. Both the
    Governor’s and Committee’s budgets reduce the 500,000 allocation. It is
    anticipated that FY 12 funding will be carried forward to FY 13 and
    transferred to OLM to carry out the study.

OFFICE OF PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY FOR PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
   Governor’s budget transferred 31 positions and 2,450,896 to reflect the
     consolidation of OPA into CHRO.
   Committee’s budget rejects the consolidation and keeps OPA and CHRO
     independent agencies.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
   Provide Funding to Connecticut’s Youth Employment Program – Committee
    provides funding of 1,000,000 to the Connecticut Youth Employment
    Program.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

    Support Implementation of Master Social Worker Licensure – provides
     funding of $53,000 to support the implementation. Includes $48,723 in
     Personal Services, one full time position, $3,000 in OE and $1,277 in
     Equipment.

STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                                      27
   Transfer Various Child Care Programs and Charts-A-Course Funding from
    DSS – the Governor transfers $3,159,757 from DSS to SDE: $572,000 to the
    After School Program and $2,587,757 to the School Readiness Quality
    Enhancement Account. The Committee rejects this transfer.
   Provide Additional Funding for Various Programs – Governor and
    Committee provide $500,000 to develop an early college readiness
    assessment to reduce the need for college remediation.
   Provide Funding for Additional School Readiness Slots – the Governor
    provided $4 million for an additional 500 slots and the Committee provided
    $8 million for an additional 1,000 slots. The first 600 must be located in the
    ten educational reform districts. The remaining four must be located in
    priority school districts or competitive districts.
   Provide Funding to Increase Non-Sheff Magnet Per Pupil Grants – both the
    Governor and Committee provide $5 million. $7,440 is provided for host
    operated magnet schools (town run) or Regional Education Services Centers
    (RESC) that enroll at least 55 % of the school’s students from a single town,
    and $8,180 is provided from RESC that enroll less than 55% for the school’s
    students from a single town.
   Provide Additional Funding for School Readiness Quality Enhancement –
    both the Governor and Committee provide $3 million for All Our Kin
    model, encouraging providers to improve the quality of their early childhood
    programs by funding scholarships, retention bonuses and technical
    assistance, the Accreditation Facilitation Project (AFP) and expanding the
    number of quality early childhood educators though partnering high schools,
    and colleges.

OFFICE OF FINANCIAL AND ACADEMIC AFFAIRS FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION
      Reduce FY 13 Funding to Reflect FY 12 Minority Advancement
       Program Carry forward – the Governor reduced funding by $728,849,
       which will result in fewer programs funded. The Committee reduced
       funding by $228,849.
      Reduce Funding for Connecticut Aid to Public College Students Grants
       – the committee reduced the funding by $5,308,469. At the
       Appropriations Committee meeting, the subcommittee chair indicated
       that this reduction was a mistake and money would be restored.
      Adjust Funding for CT Independent College Student Grant. Governor
       reduced this grant by $3,829,075 and schools with endowments over 200
       million would be ineligible for funding. Committee provide $1,214,155

                                       28
         for the program and also made schools with endowments over $200
         million ineligible.

UCONN HEALTH CENTER
   Transfer Funding from DOC – the Committee transfers three million dollars
    from DOC, and an additional five million is transferred from DOC to DSS to
    ensure that UConn Health Center is fully compensated for the cost of these
    services, as the current Medicaid rate structure would result in an
    underfunding of $3 million.

BOARD OF REGENTS
   Reduce Block Grant Funding to the CT State University and the
    Community-Technical Colleges – the Committee reduced funding to each
    entity by $100,000, totaling a $200,000 cut. The Committee indicated that
    this was to reflect savings from the consolidations.

BACK OF THE BUDGET LANGUAGE
   Funds for a strategic plan for higher education appropriated in the FY12
    budget will not lapse and will be available for FY13

The Appropriations Committee passed the bill by a party line vote of 34 to 15, with
the exception of Sen. Suzio (R-Meriden), who voted ‘Yea’ with the Democrats.
The Republicans offered Amendment ‘A’ with their alternative recommended
changes, which failed by a party line vote of 15 to 30. The bill was sent to the
House, where it died with no further action taken on it.
There was concern that the budget would not get done before the end of the session
because of the discussions after Education Reform and its impact on the budget.
Then the April tax return numbers came in and were not good. There was an
increase in tax refunds that put the revenue estimates for a deficit for the present
fiscal year at between $200-$300 million and reduced the revenue figures for FY13
which had an impact on the budget. There was fear that there would be extensive
cuts to the budget approved by Appropriations.
An education reform compromise was put together the Sunday before the end of
the session opening up the opportunity to get the budget done in the last days of the
session.

HB 5557: AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO STATE
EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2013.
Passed.

                                         29
This bill was the final budget and introduced through emergency certification by
Speaker Donovan (D-Meriden), and Sen. Williams (D-Brooklyn). The budget was
the subject of long debates in both the houses. The Republicans offered their
budget as amendment to this bill which failed on party line votes.
In the House, Rep. Cafero (R-Norwalk) and Sen. Markley (R-Plantsville), offered
House Amendment Schedule ‘A,’ which was the Republican’s alternative budget
recommendations. House ‘A’ failed by a party line vote of 49 to 94. The
emergency certification passed the House by a party line vote of 49 to 95. The
emergency certification was transferred to the Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 17.
In the Senate, the Republican’s alternative budget was offered by Sen. Markley
and Rep. Cafero as Senate Amendment Schedule ‘A.’ Senate ‘A’ was defeated in
a party line vote of 14 to 21. Sen. Suzio (R-Meriden) offered Senate Amendment
Schedule ‘B’ which would lower the gas tax to two per cent for the period of July
1, 2012 to August 31, 2012. Senate Amendment Schedule ‘B’ failed by a party
line vote of 14 to 21. The bill passed the Senate in concurrence by a largely party
line vote of 13 to 22, with Sen. Suzio voting ‘Yea’ with the Democrats.
Fortunately for many human services programs the budget shortfall caused by the
lower revenue number was made up largely by transfers from other accounts or
sweeps. The accounts from which revenue was spent on the budget included the
Transportation Fund, the Insurance Fund, the Banking Fund., Soldiers, Sailors and
Marine Fund, etc.
This report is being done before the special session to pass budget
implementers so there may be more information in the implementers as to
budget changes.
But changes to the Appropriations Budget in this final budget that we thought you
might be interested in include: increase/(decrease)
     Reduce funding for interdistrict cooperation grants. ($1 million)
     Reduce UConn block grant ($1.5 million)
     Reduce CSU Block Grant ($1 million)
     Reduced Community Technical College System ($1 million)
     Reduced CT Aid to Public College Students ($4,308,469)

EDUCATION REFORM
The budget included the funding for Education Reform. The breakdown is below:
    State Department of Education (SDE) New                Amount $
          Funding Initiatives (in millions)
 Education Cost Sharing (ECS)                                          50.0
 Charter Schools                                                        8.1
 Commissioner’s Network                                                 7.5
                                        30
 Early Childhood (School Readiness Slots)                                    6.8
 Magnets                                                                     4.7
 Talent Development2                                                         3.5
 School Readiness Quality Enhancement                                        3.0
 K-3 Reading                                                                 2.7
 Various Initiatives3                                                        2.2
 Sheff4                                                                      2.0
 Family Resource Centers                                                     1.9
 Vocational Agriculture                                                      1.4
 TOTAL                                                                      93.8


III. General Education Bills

HB 5348: AN ACT CONCERNING SCHOOL NURSES AND SCHOOL
MEDICAL ADVISORS. Passed.

This bill was introduced by the Education Committee with 15 co-sponsors. This
bill allows a qualified school employee selected by the school nurse or principal to
administer an emergency glucagon injection to a student with diabetes, under
certain conditions. The school nurse or principal must have a written authorization
from the student's parents and a written order from the student's Connecticut-
licensed physician. The selected employee must be a principal, teacher, licensed
athletic trainer, licensed physical or occupational therapist employed by the school
board, coach, or school paraprofessional.

Current law already allows a principal or teacher, along with other specified school
personnel, to give any student medication in the absence of the school nurse, with
the written authority of the student's parents and according to a written order from
a specified health practitioner. In addition, under current law, an identified school
paraprofessional may give medicine to a specific student who has a medically
diagnosed allergy that may require prompt treatment to protect the student from
serious harm or death.

The bill extends required educational guidelines for school districts in how to
manage students with life-threatening allergies to also cover students with
glycogen storage disease. It requires the State Department of Education (SDE) and
the Department of Public Health (DPH) to issue the new guidelines by July 1,
2012, and school districts to develop individualized health care and glycogen

                                         31
storage disease action plans for their students with the disease by August 15, 2012.
The plans must allow parents or guardians of students with the disease, or those
they designate, to administer food or dietary supplements to their children with the
disease on school grounds during the school day. The bill immunizes towns, school
districts, and school employees from damage claims resulting from these actions.

The bill also:

1. bars a school district from restricting the time or place where a student with
diabetes may test his or her blood-glucose levels, if the student has written
permission from his parents or guardian and a written order from his or her
Connecticut-licensed physician;

2. updates and broadens the duties of a school medical advisor;

3. requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to make available curriculum and
other material to help school districts offer training to students in cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) and the use of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) (§ 4);
and

4. requires public schools to include a total of 20 minutes of physical exercise in
each regular school day for students in kindergarten through grade five.

Finally, the bill allows only a Connecticut-licensed physician, rather than any
licensed physician, to give a written order for a school paraprofessional to
administer medication to a student with a medically diagnosed allergy.

Testifying in support of the bill at the public hearing were Commissioner Stefan
Pryor of the State Board of Education, Steve Updegrove from the Academy of
Pediatrics, Verna Bernard Jones, President of the Hartford Federation of Teachers
Health Professionals, George Hosey, a Ledyard parent, Donna Kosiorowski of the
Association of School Nurses of Connecticut, Mary Loftus Levine, the CEA
Executive Director, Michael Corjulo, the president of the CT School Nurse
Association, and Lori Pelletier, Secretary and Treasurer of the Connecticut AFL-
CIO.

Testifying in opposition to the bill were: The Connecticut Association of Boards of
Education (CABE), Mary Jane Williams, the current Chairperson of the
Government Relations Committee and Professor Emeritus, Central Connecticut
State University, and Jim Finley, Executive Director and CEO of the Connecticut
Conference of Municipalities.
                                         32
The Education Committee proposed substitute language which requires a school's
health and safety curriculum to include CPR and AED training and also requires
that schools devote to students in grades Kindergarten through five, at least 20
minutes of physical exercise. The substitute language was favorably reported by
the Education Committee to Public Health Committee by a vote of 32 to 0.

The Public Health Committee favorably reported the bill to the House, by a vote of
20 to 6, with Sen. Welch (R-Bristol), Rep. Perillo (R-Shelton), Rep. Betts (R-
Bristol), Rep. Carter (R-Bethel), Rep. Hetherington (R-New Canaan), and Sen.
Kane (R-Watertown), voting ‘No.’ The House the referred the bill to the
Appropriations Committee, where it was favorably reported back by a vote of 40 to
9 with Rep. Miner (R-Litchfield), Rep. Betts, Rep. Lavielle (R-Wilton), Sen.
Markley (R-Plantsville), Rep. O’Neil (R-Southbury), Rep. Sampson (R-Wolcott),
Rep. Sawyer (R-Bolton), Rep. Wadsworth (R-Farmington), Sen. Welch (R-
Bristol).

The House referred the bill to the Appropriations Committee, which favorably
reported the bill back to the House by a vote of 40 to 9, with Sen. Markley, Rep.
O’Neil, Rep. Sampson, Rep. Sawyer, Rep. Wadsworth, Sen. Welch, Rep. Lavielle,
Rep. Miner, and Rep. Betts, voting ‘No.’

House Amendment Schedule ‘A’ was offered by Rep. Fleischmann (D-West
Hartford), Rep. Giuliano (D-Old Saybrook), Rep. Ritter (D-Quaker Hill), Rep.
Reynolds (D-Gales Ferry), and Rep Ackert (R-Coventry). House Amendment ‘A’
(1) specifies the school employees who can be selected to administer emergency
glucagon injections to students with diabetes and the conditions under which they
may do so; (2) requires a student seeking to self-test his or her blood glucose at
school to have written authorization from his or her parent or guardian; (3)
eliminates the authority for an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) to
provide such a self-testing order and requires a physician who does so to be
licensed in Connecticut; and (4) requires the SBE to provide curriculum materials
for school districts wishing to offer CPR and AED training rather than requiring
school districts to include such training in their health curricula. The Amendment
was adopted by voice vote.

House Amendment Schedule ‘B’ was offered by Rep Fleischmann, Sen. Gerratana
(D-New Britain), Sen. Stillman (D-Waterford), Rep. Cook (D-Torrington), and
Rep. Becker (D-West Hartford). House Amendment ‘B’ adds the provisions
relating to students with glycogen storage disease. The Amendment was adopted
by voice vote.

                                        33
The bill passed the House by a vote of 124 to 2, with Rep. Kiner (D-Enfield), and
Rep. Sayers (D-Windsor Locks) casting the only ‘No’ votes. The Senate adopted
House Amendment Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B,’ and passed the bill in concurrence by a
vote of 32 to 3, with Sen. Kelly (R-Stratford), Sen. Markley (R-Plantsville), and
Sen. Suzio (R-Meriden), casting the ‘No’ votes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2012, except for the provisions relating to students
with diabetes and plans for students with glycogen storage disease, which are
effective on passage.

HB 5432: AN ACT CONCERNING SCHOOL-BASED ARRESTS. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Judiciary Committee and co-sponsored by Rep.
Jason Rojas (D-East Hartford), Rep. Toni E. Walker (D-New Haven), Rep. Gary
A. Holder-Winfield (D-New Haven), Rep. Hector L. Robles (D-Hartford), Rep.
Christopher Lyddy (D-Newtown), Rep. Patricia Billie Miller (D-Stamford), Rep.
Sanchez (D-New Britain), Rep. Johnson (D-Willimantic), Rep. Clemons (D-
Bridgeport), Rep. Morris (D-Norwalk), and Rep. McCrory (D-Hartford) . This
bill would require local and regional boards of education to adopt and implement a
policy defining the role and responsibility of sworn police officers placed in
schools by agreement between the school board and highest local or state law
enforcement official and each board's annual “strategic school profile reports” for
each school and district as a whole to include measures of (a) discipline (which the
bill does not define) and beginning with the first reports issued after July 1, 2014,
school-based arrests. The bill would have had an effective date of July 1, 2013.

The bill would have defined a “school-based arrest” as the arrest on school
property during the school day or at a school-sponsored activity on or off school
property, of a student enrolled in a school under the jurisdiction of the local or
regional reporting board.

The bill's measures of school-based arrests included the number of arrests made
annually at each school within the district, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender,
age, whether the student receives special education services, whether the student is
an English language learner, and the offenses for which the arrests were made.

The bill required that any disaggregated measure relating to the arrest of fewer than
six students be reported using a “symbol.” It is unclear how this directive is to be
implemented, but presumably, a report would protect student confidentiality in a
disaggregated measure that included small student numbers.

                                         34
Testifying in support of this bill at the public hearing were Office of the Child
Advocate, Mickey Kramer, Division of Public Defender Services, Christine Perra
Rapillo, Department of Emergency Services & Public Protection, Reuben F.
Bradford, Yale Law School, The Jerome N. Frank Legal Service Organization,
Andrew Hammond, Quinnipiac University, Dr. Alan Bruce, CT Voices for
Children, Alexandra Dufresne & Sarah Esty, Stamford Youth Services Bureau,
Terri Drew, ACLU, Jeanne Leblanc, Center for Children's Advocacy, Hannah
Benton, Center for Children's Law and Policy, CT Juvenile Justice Alliance, Abby
Anderson, Dispute Settlement Center, Dorothy Adams, National Alliance on
Mental Illness, Daniela Giordano, Manchester Youth Service Bureau, Erica
Bromley, Michelle Chase, Mary Louise Reardon, and Robert James Payne.
Testifying in opposition to this bill was Hartford Police Union, Richard Holton.
CT Conference of Municipalities, Ron Thomas, appreciated the intent of the bill
but opposed the cost to municipalities.

The Judiciary Committee voted to favorably report the bill by a party line vote of
28 to 14. The bill was then sent to the House where it was referred to the
Education Committee. In the Education Committee, the bill passed by a largely
party line vote of 22 to 9, with Rep. Hovey (R-Monroe) voting ‘Yes’ with the
Democrats.

The bill died on the House Calendar with no further action taken.

SB 185: AN ACT CONCERNING NOTICE TO PARENTS OF STUDENT
ATHLETES ABOUT CONCUSSIONS AND HEAD INJURIES. Died.


This bill was introduced by the Public Health Committee and co-sponsored by
Rep. Carpino (R-Cromwell). It would have required the State Board of Education
(SBE), in consultation with the public health commissioner, to develop and
approve a written statement to inform the parents and legal guardians of student
athletes involved in intramural or interscholastic athletics about concussions and
head injuries. It must do so by January 1, 2013.

Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, the bill would have required anyone who
has an SBE-issued coaching permit and coaches intramural or interscholastic
athletics to provide the written SBE statement described above to the parent or
legal guardian of each participating student, before beginning the activity for the
school year. The coach must have obtained the parent's or legal guardian's
signature, affirming that the parent or guardian received a copy of the statement

                                         35
and authorizes the student to participate in the activity. If a coach did not fulfill
these requirements, SBE may revoke his or her coaching permit, in accordance
with existing procedures for revocation proceedings. It had an effective date of
October 1, 2012.

Testifying in support of the bill at the public hearing were Vicky Graham, ATC,
President, CT Athletic Trainers' Association.

 Candito Carroccia, D.C. DABCN, CT Chiropractic Association, CT State Medical
Society (CSMS), Connecticut Chapters of the American College of Physicians, and
American College of Surgeons, Deb Shulansky, Director, Brain Injury Alliance of
CT, Fred Balsamo, CMAA; Executive Director, CT Assoc of Athletic Directors,
and Joan-Alice Taylor, President, CT Physical Therapy Association,

The Public Health Committee sent the bill to the Education Committee by a vote of
21 to 4, with Rep. Perillo (R-Shelton), Rep. Hetherington (R-New Canaan), Rep.
LeGeyt (R-Avon), and Rep. Srinivasan (R-Glastonbury) voting no. In the
Education Committee, the bill was favorably reported by a vote of 30 to 1, with
Rep. LeGeyt casting the only no vote.

The bill was then sent to the Senate, where it was referred to the Appropriations
Committee where it passed by a vote of 50 to 2, with Rep. Sampson (R-
Southington), and Sen. Markley (R-Cheshire), casting the only ‘No’ votes.

The bill was then returned to the Senate, where it died with no further action taken
on it.

HB 5353: AN ACT CONCERNING INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION
PROGRAMS AND OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO SPECIAL
EDUCATION. Passed.

This bill was introduced by the Education Committee and was co-sponsored by 36
legislators. This bill makes several changes to the state's special education law. It:
1. requires additional opportunities for meetings and the exchange of information
between school district officials and parents of students in, or under evaluation for,
special education; 2. requires teacher certification preparation, in-service training,
and professional development to include expanded instruction and training
regarding implementing individualized education programs (IEPs); and 3. specifies
the school district eligible for special education excess cost grant money in


                                           36
different circumstances when a child is placed in a school district other than his or
her district of origin.

It also requires any IEP for a child identified as deaf or hearing impaired to include
a language and communication plan developed by the child's planning and
placement team (PPT). It specifies a number of items that the plan must include.
The bill does not appear to expand current requirements under state law and
regulation, but it adds specifics to state law.

It also makes technical changes. The implementation date of the bill is July 1,
2012.

Testifying in support of the bill at the public hearing were Edward F. Peltier,
Executive Director of the American School for the Deaf; Kathleen DonAroma,
Director of Outreach Education, American School for the Deaf; Anne Nutt,
Teacher, American School for the Deaf; James D. McGaughey, Executive
Director, Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities; Senator
McLachlan; Representative Reynolds; Representative Taborsak; Representative
Morin; Jamie Gauthier, parent of a child who is deaf, Preston; Joan Weir, parent
and educator, Madison; Kate Graham, parent of child with hearing loss, Shelton;
Christopher and Lori Packer, parents of a child who is deaf, Manchester; Terry
Bedard, parent of a child who is deaf; Sharon and Wayne Strong, parents,
Simsbury; Rachel Kane, individual who is hard of hearing, Ledyard; Patti and
Manny Silva, parents of child with hearing loss, Wethersfield; Matthew Bedard,
student, Johnson & Wales University; Marc Anthony Gallucci, Center for
Disability Rights; Fran Sykes, Legislative Analyst, African American Affairs
Commission; Heidi A. Forrest, individual who is deaf, Southington; Elizabeth B.
Cole, Ed.D., CCC/A, LSLS cert AVT, South Windsor; Dr. Harvey Corson,
President of the Connecticut Association of the Deaf and Co-Chair of the Deaf
Child Bill of Rights Initiative; CM Boryslawskyj, East Hampton; Carey Mallach,
parent, Bridgeport; Allison M. Malerba, teacher, CREC Soundbridge Program,
Wethersfield; Tammy & Jay Breard, parents of a child with moderately severe-
hearing loss, Wethersfield; Ruth and Bill Ennis, parents of a child with
moderately-severe hearing loss, West Simsbury; Paul and Corinne Fahey, parents
of a child with hearing loss, Windsor Locks; Patricia E. Wilson, Newington; Mary
Silvestri, teacher, Danbury Public Schools; Kristin Vasil Dilaj, assistant professor,
University of Connecticut; Katherine Fahey, person with moderate hearing
impairment, college student, Windsor Locks; Jenilee Marques, student, American
School for the Deaf, West Hartford; Holly Miller, school psychologist; Grant and
Betty Young, East Granby; Susan Zimmerman, parent, Hanover; Robyn Kaplan,

                                         37
CHO, Connecticut Education Association; Sheila Matthews, Co-founder, Able
Child; David Scata, Legislative Liaison, ConnCASE; Jamie Lazaroff, Executive
Director, The Arc of Connecticut; Sherry Zummo, parent of a child who is deaf
and Daniela Giordano, NAMI – CT.

Testifying in opposition to the bill was the Connecticut Association of Boards of
Education and Michelle Bidwell, parent, Willington.

The Education Committee passed the bill with substitute language, which makes
technical changes and changing the implementation date from June 30, 2012 to
June 30, 2013. The vote was 32 to 1, with Rep. LeGeyt (R-Canton) as dissenting.

The bill was sent to the House only to be referred back to the Appropriations
Committee, who unanimously reported the bill back out to the House Floor.

Reps. LeGeyt and Guliano (R- Old Saybrook) offered an amendment which failed
on a party line vote. The House then took a vote on the underlying bill, and it
passed unanimously. HB 5353 was immediately transmitted up to the Senate,
where it was placed on the consent calendar and passed unanimously.

SB 24: AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS.
DIED(This is the education reform bill, the bill that passed was SB458 See
Below)

This bill was introduced on behalf of the Governor by Speaker Donovan (D-
Meriden), Rep. Sharkey (D-Hamden), Sen. Williams (D-Brooklyn), and Sen.
Looney (D-New Haven), and co-sponsored by Rep. Kirkley-Bey (D-Hartford).
Among other things, the bill (1) increased state education funding for towns,
school districts, and charter and certain interdistrict magnet schools; (2) changed
how the state identifies and intervenes to improve student achievement in low-
performing school districts and schools; and (3) revamps required evaluation,
termination processes, certification, and professional development for teachers and
school administrators.

The bill's major funding provisions: (1) increased Education Cost Sharing (ECS)
grants and establish new minimum budget requirements (MBRs) for most towns
for FY 13 (2) increased state funding for state and local charter schools, as well as
for interdistrict magnet schools located outside the Hartford region: and (3)
establish new state grants and programs to, among other things, support school
district improvement, help students apply to college; funded innovation schools to
help meet desegregation goals, helped school districts achieve efficiencies to save
                                          38
money, and created a School Leadership Academy program to train school
administrators.

With respect to schools and school districts with low student achievement, the bill's
major provisions: (1) required (a) the education commissioner to identify, and
withhold ECS grant increases from, up to 30 of the lowest performing school
districts and (b) those districts to submit improvement plans and meet other
conditions to have the funds released; (2) (a) required the State Board of Education
(SBE), in approving new charter schools, to focus on schools that plan to serve
educationally needy populations or turn around existing schools with persistent
low academic performance and (b) expanded enrollment lotteries to give more
students the chance to enroll in new charter schools; (3) revamped the education
accountability law regarding schools in need of improvement and created new
school categories based on student academic performance; (4) designated category
four and five schools as low-achieving schools subject to intensified SBE
intervention and expand the range of options the SBE must take regarding low–
achieving schools and districts; (5) established a commissioner's network for 10 of
the state's lowest performing schools and require the commissioner to develop and
implement a plan to improve student achievement in each of them; (6) required the
state to establish up to 20 family resource centers or school-based health centers in
category four and five schools; and required the state to provide funding for 1,000
new spaces in school readiness programs, with 600 spaces allocated to the 10
lowest-performing school districts.

The bill's major provisions concerning teachers and school administrators: (1)
expanded the grounds and shortened the process for teacher termination; (2)
expanded requirements for the state's model teacher evaluation guidelines to be
issued by July 1, 2012 and required the education commissioner to develop a plan
for linking evaluations and teacher tenure; (3) revamped the state's teacher
certification system to, among other things, (a) eliminated the middle-level
provisional certificate, (b) required a relevant master's degree to obtain a
professional certificate, and (c) revised teacher professional development
requirements to emphasize improved practice and individual and small-group
coaching sessions; and (4) established a state distinguished educator designation
for teachers with advanced degrees and training who meet performance standards
established by the State Department of Education (SDE).

Finally, the bill would have established a separate board to oversee the vocational-
technical school system. The bill had an effective date of July 1, 2012, unless
otherwise noted.

                                         39
Testifying at the Public Hearing on the Governor’s original bill were over 100
people, Including Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Commissioner of Education, Stefan
Pryor, Benjamin Barnes, Secretary, Office of Policy Management,Dr. Michael
Sampson, Southern Connecticut State University, Bruce Douglas, Executive
Director, Capitol Region Education Council (CREC),Sarah Esty and Cyd
Oppenheimer, J.D, Connecticut Voices for Children, Robert Cotto Jr., Orlando
Rodriguez, CT Voices for Children, Barbara Zuras, Sheff Movement:Katherine
Nicoletti, Member, NAMI-CT,Dr. Aram Ayalon Professor of Education, Central
Connecticut State University, Daniela Giordano, Public Policy Director, NAMI-CT

The bill was amended in the Education Committee and that version is described
above. When the bill was brought up for a vote, Rep. Lavielle (R-Norwalk)
proposed an amendment which establishes a task force to study whether carious
state education mandates can be waived for certain school districts that produce
consistently high academic performance. The amendment failed to pass by a party
line vote of 12 to 21.

The substitute language passed by a vote of 28 to 5, with Rep. Ackert (R-
Coventry), Sen. Boucher (R-Westport), Rep. Giuliano (R-Old Saybrook), Rep.
Lavielle (R-Norwalk), and Rep. LeGeyt (R-Avon) voting ‘No.’

The bill was sent to the Senate, where it was referred to the Appropriations
Committee. The Appropriations Committee voted to favorably report the bill back
to the Senate by a vote of 40 to 12, with Rep. Carpino (R-Cromwell), Rep.
Giuiliano (R-Old Saybrook), Sen. Welch (R-Bristol), and Sen. Suzio (R-Meriden),
voting ‘Yea’ with the Democrats.

The Senate referred the bill to the Government Administration and Elections
Committee. The GAE Committee voted to favorably report the bill back to the
Senate by a vote of 10 to 2, with Rep. Hwang (R-Fairfield), and Rep. Labriola (R-
Naugatuck), casting the only ‘No’ votes.

This was obviously a high profile piece of legislation that was the subject of
negotiations up to the final days of the session. The areas that were the major areas
of contention included: how teacher evaluations were done and the relationship
between teacher evaluations and tenure; the Governor’s proposal to replace tenure
with five year contracts; the number of schools in the Commissioners Network of
Low-Performing Schools and the collective bargaining rights of unions in those
schools.


                                         40
The bill was returned to the Senate, where it died with no further action taken.
Instead given the short time before the legislature’s adjournment dates a bill was
emergency certified-see SB 458

SB 458: AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL REFORM. PASSED.
SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR, MAY 15th.

This bill was introduced in the Senate through Emergency Certification by Sen.
Williams (D-Brooklyn), and Rep. Donovan (D-Meriden). This bill makes
numerous revisions and changes in education statutes and programs affecting (1)
early childhood education; (2) school and school district operations and funding;
(3) teacher and school administrator qualifications, performance evaluation, tenure,
and termination; (4) the duties and responsibilities of the State Department and
State Board of Education; and (5) the governance and operation of the Connecticut
Technical High School System. The bill has an effective date of July 1, 2012,
unless otherwise noted. This was the final education reform bill. The major pieces
of the legislation that passed are outlined below:

NEW SCHOOL READINESS PROGRAM SPACES

The bill requires the State Department of Education (SDE) to provide funds to
appropriate school districts to create the following new school readiness program
spaces in those districts:

1. 500 in the 10 districts with the lowest district performance indices (“educational
reform districts”),

2. 250 in priority and former priority districts other than educational reform
districts, and

3. 250 in school districts receiving competitive funding under the SDE's school
readiness program (“competitive districts”).

A “competitive school district” is one that (1) has a priority school or former
priority school (i.e., a school where at least 40% of the school lunches served are
free or reduced-price) or (2) is not a priority school district but whose town is one
of the 50 poorest in the state when considering adjusted equalized grand net list,
student population, and population.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FACILITY STUDY

                                         41
The bill allocates any unspent funds appropriated for 1,000 new school readiness
spaces required up to $80,000 to the Connecticut Health and Educational Facilities
Authority (CHEFA) to update its 2008 study of the space and facilities needed to
provide universal early childhood education for all three- and four-year-olds in the
state. If CHEFA receives funding for the updated study, it must submit the updated
study and any recommendations to the Education Committee by April 1, 2013.

EARLY CHILDHOOD QUALITY RATING AND IMPROVEMENT
SYSTEM

The bill makes SDE, rather than the early childhood system, responsible for
developing a quality rating and improvement system for home-, center-, and
school-based early child care and learning. It requires the early childhood system
to incorporate SDE's rating system.

EARLY LITERACY PILOT EXTENSION

The education commissioner is authorized to (1) conduct a pilot study to promote
best practices in early literacy and closing academic achievement gaps and (2)
identify schools to participate in the study. The bill extends the pilot from the
school year starting July 1, 2012 to the school year starting July 1, 2013.

NEW STATEWIDE READING ASSESSMENTS

The bill requires SDE, by January 1, 2013, to develop or approve reading
assessments that districts must use to identify K through third grade students who
are reading deficient.

By February 1, 2013, the commissioner must submit the reading assessment to the
Education Committee.

TEACHER READING EXAM

Beginning July 1, 2014 and each following school year, the bill requires all
certified employees (i.e., teachers and administrators) working in grades K through
third grade to take a practices version of an SBE-approved reading instruction
exam. Each local and regional board of education shall annually report the results
of such practice examination to the Department of Education.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN READING


                                        42
By July 1, 2013 the bill requires the education commissioner to establish a
professional development program in reading instruction for teachers.

The bill also requires the education commissioner to annually review the
professional development required under the bill for teachers holding professional
certificates with early childhood nursery through third grade or elementary school
endorsements and holding jobs requiring such endorsements. The commissioner
must assess whether the professional development meets state goals for student
academic achievement through implementation of (1) the State Board of Education
(SBE)-adopted common core standards, (2) research based interventions, and (3)
the federal special education law (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.). He must
submit his review to the Education Committee.

FAMILY RESOURCE CENTERS AND SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH
CLINICS

For the 2012-13 school year, the bill requires the education commissioner to
establish (1) at least 10 new family resource centers and (2) at least 20 new or
expanded school-based health clinics in alliance districts (the 30 lowest-performing
districts.)

PHYSICAL EXERCISE REQUIREMENT FOR GRADES K-5

The bill requires public schools to include a total of 20 minutes of physical
exercise in each regular school day for students in kindergarten through grade five.

MUNICIPAL AID FOR NEW TEACHERS PROGRAM

Starting with FY 14, the bill requires SDE, to establish a Municipal Aid for New
Teachers (MANE) program, within available appropriations, to provide grants of
up to $200,000 to each of the 10 educational reform districts by March 1, annually
(presumably beginning March 1, 2014). The districts must use the MANE grants to
hire five seniors per year who are graduating in the top 10% of their classes from
teacher preparation programs at Connecticut colleges and universities.

SCHOOL DISTRICT COST-SAVING GRANTS

The bill allows the education commissioner, within available appropriations, to
provide grants to support school districts in developing plans to implement
significant cost savings while maintaining or improving educational quality. The
grants must be for technical assistance and regional cooperation.
                                        43
OPEN CHOICE PROGRAM INCENTIVE FOR LARGER DISTRICTS

The bill provides an additional incentive for larger school districts to increase their
enrollment of out-of-district students under the Open Choice interdistrict public
school attendance program. It does so by giving districts with more than 4,000
students the highest state Open Choice grant ($6,000 for each out-of-district
student) if the education commissioner determines they have increased their Open
Choice enrollment by at least 50% on October 1, 2012.

EXEMPLARY SCHOOLS

The bill allows SDE to publicly recognize exemplary schools and promote their
best practices.

DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ON SCHOOL OPTIONS

The bill requires each board of education to post information about t school
options, as well as about alternative high schools, on its website.

UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND CHART OF ACCOUNTS

This bill requires SDE to develop and implement a uniform system of accounting
for school revenues and expenditures that includes a chart of accounts for use at
the school and school district level. The chart of accounts must include (1) all
amounts and sources of revenue that a board of education, regional education
service center (RESC), charter school, or charter management organization
receives and (2) cash or real property donations to a school district or school
totaling an aggregate of $500 or more. The bill also requires SDE to impose “select
measures,” which the bill allows SDE to define, on individual schools.

Starting with FY 15, the bill requires each board of education, regional education
service center (RESC), and state charter school to implement the system by filing
annual financial reports using a chart of accounts that meets the requirements of an
existing statute requiring boards of education to (1) annually submit receipts,
expenditures, and statistics to the education commissioner and (2) have the
information certified by an independent public accountant selected to audit
municipal accounts. The bill permits the Office of Policy and Management (OPM)
to annually audit the annual financial reports for any board of education, RESC, or
state charter school.



                                          44
The bill also requires SDE to (1) make the chart of accounts available on its
website and (2) submit the chart of accounts to the Education and Appropriations
committees by July 1, 2013.

STUDY OF SMALL DISTRICT ISSUES

The bill requires SDE to study issues related to districts with fewer than 1,000
students (“small districts”).The department must consider:

1. financial disincentives, such as a small district reduction percentage (see below),
for small districts whose per-pupil costs exceed the state average for the prior year;

2. financial incentives for such districts to consolidate;

3. the $100-per-student ECS grant regional bonus as well as the effect of other
state reimbursement bonuses for regional districts and cooperative arrangements;
and

4. the ECS minimum budget requirement.

The bill defines per-student cost as a district's net current expenditures divided by
its average student membership (student count) as of October 1.

SDE must report the findings and recommendations of its study to the Education
Committee by January 1, 2013.

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE INDICES, ACTIONS REGARDING LOW-
ACHIEVING SCHOOLS, AND RECONSTITUTION OF LOCAL BOARDS
OF EDUCATION

The bill (1) revamps the education accountability law regarding identifying school
districts in need of improvement and (2) creates new categories of schools based
on student performance on statewide mastery tests in order to take action to
improve academic achievement. In order to separate the schools into five
categories, the bill creates a school performance index (SPI) ranking system.

The bill also modifies the law regarding reconstitution of boards of education in
low-performing school districts, including establishing a method of notifying local
officials of the start and conclusion of reconstitutions.



                                           45
School Districts in Need of Improvement, Low-Performing Schools, and Focus
Schools

Under the current education accountability law, the education commissioner
identifies school districts and individual schools “in need of improvement” in the
statewide education accountability plan. The designation “in need of
improvement” is based on federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act provisions
that require school districts and schools to make adequate yearly progress toward
proficient student performance on required tests.

School Performance Index

The bill creates a measurement called the SPI to gauge how schools perform on
statewide mastery tests in math, reading, writing, and science. It also allows the
SBE to authorize an alternative version of the index for grade levels above
elementary, but does not specify how this how this alternative version varies from
the SPI in the bill.

It prescribes (1) how SPIs are calculated for each school and (2) subject-specific
SPIs. The school SPI is used to place each school in one of five categories. The bill
applies different state responses and interventions to schools depending upon their
category.

Categories One Through Five. Under the bill, the performance management and
support plan must state the performance factors used to determine what category
each school falls into.

Table 1: School Categories Under the Performance Management and Support
                                   Plan

Category           School Description
           Ranked     having     the    lowest
           performance as indicated by factors
           in that may include SPI, change in
    5      SPI over time, student achievement
           growth, and high school graduation
           and dropout rates overall and for
           subgroups of students
           Ranked     having     the    lowest
    4
           performance other than Category 5
                                         46
           schools based on factors that may
           include the four factors listed above
           for Category 5
           Ranked having performance higher
           than category 4 and 5 but lower
    3
           than 1 and 2 based on the same
           factors listed above.
           Ranked having performance higher
           than category 3, 4 and 5 but lower
    2
           than 1 based on the same factors
           listed above
           Ranked       having    the     highest
    1      performance of any schools based
           on the same factors listed above

Category Three Schools. The bill allows SDE to impose certain requirements on
category three schools. The department may (1) require the schools to develop and
implement plans consistent with the bill and federal law to elevate them from a
low-achieving status and (2) impose on them any of the actions contained in the
statewide performance management and support plan.

SDE may also require the local or regional board of education for a category three
school to collaborate with the appropriate RESC to develop plans to ensure the
school provides:

1. early education opportunities;

2. summer school;

3. extended school day or year programming;

4. weekend classes;

5. tutors; or

6. professional development to its administrators, principals, teachers, and
paraprofessional aides.



                                          47
The commissioner can limit such programs to (1) the student subgroup that has
failed to reach performance benchmarks or (2) those in transitional or milestone
grades or those who are otherwise at substantial risk of educational failure.

Transition to New Plan

The bill creates a transition period for the SBE to switch the identified schools and
districts from the accountability plan under current law, which the bill would
continue until June 30, 2012, and the new statewide management and support plan
prepared under the bill.

Low-Achieving Schools and Districts

By law, districts in need of improvement are one group and low-achieving school
districts are a subset of that group. By law and unchanged by the bill, a school or
district in need of improvement that requires corrective action under the federal
NCLB law is designated a low-achieving school or district that is subject to
intensified SBE supervision and direction.

The bill also designates category four and five schools and focus schools as low-
achieving schools and requires the SBE to intensively supervise and direct them.
Consequently, it extends an existing statutory list of required SBE actions for low-
achieving schools or districts to category four and five schools and focus schools.
By law, for low-achieving schools and districts, and under the bill for category four
and five schools and focus schools, the SBE must take any of the actions from the
list to improve student performance of a school or district or of a student subgroup
to remove the school or district from the low-achieving list.

SBE may:

1. require operational and instructional audits;

2. direct the district to implement an achievement plan that addresses the deficits
found in the instructional audit;

3. require the local board to use state and federal funds for critical needs as
directed by SBE;

4. provide incentives to attract high quality teachers and principals;

5. direct the transfer and assignment of teachers and principals;

                                          48
6. require the local board to implement a model curriculum;

7. identify schools to be reconstituted as state or local charter or, innovation
schools, or other models for school improvement or for management by an entity
other than the local or regional board of education for that school;

8. establish learning academies within the schools that require continuous
monitoring of student achievement, and crafting of achievement plans; and

9. provide funding for students in the low-achieving district to attend school in a
neighboring district with higher achievement levels.

By law many of the possible SBE actions (including numbers 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 from
the list above) must be carried out according to the Teacher Negotiation Act (CGS
§§ 10-153a to 153n).

The bill gives SBE the additional options to:

1. require the appointment of a superintendent, approved by the education
commissioner or

2. require the appointment of a special master, selected by the commissioner, with
the same authority as the Windham special master (PA 11-61, § 138) and whose
term must be for one fiscal year, unless SBE extends it.

The authority under the Windham special master law includes:

1. a requirement that SBE require the school board to ask the union representing a
school district bargaining unit to reopen an existing contract for the sole purpose of
revising employment conditions to implement the district's improvement plan and

2. an expedited arbitration process if the parties fail to agree to one or more issues
related to implementing the improvement plan.

Comptroller's Authority to Withhold ECS Grant Funds Repealed

The bill eliminates a requirement that the comptroller withhold ECS grant money
from a town that otherwise is required to appropriate the funds to its board of
education because of the school district's low academic achievement. (The bill
gives the comptroller similar authority for withholding funds from towns that are
designated alliance districts under the bill.)

                                         49
Reconstituted School Boards

The bill makes several changes to the law regarding reconstituting local boards of
education for low-achieving school districts. The changes involve notice to local
officials regarding the electoral process when a reconstitution starts and when it
concludes.

The bill requires the electoral process regarding the board to be suspended for the
period of reconstitution (by law, an initial three years with the option to extend for
an additional two). The bill defines the electoral process to include (1) candidate
nominations by political parties, (2) nominating petitions, (3) write-in candidacies,
and (4) filling board vacancies.

Upon terminating a local or regional board under the existing law, the bill requires
the commissioner to notify the:

1. town clerk in the school district, or clerk of each member town in the case of a
regional board of education; and

2. secretary of the state (SOTS).

The termination notice must include the termination date and the positions
terminated.

The bill requires the commissioner to decide whether he will extend the life of a
reconstituted board by two years at least 180 days before the three-year terms ends.

When a reconstituted board is reaching its conclusion, the bill requires the
commissioner to notify the town clerk or clerks, as appropriate, and the SOTS at
least 175 days before the reconstituted board's term ends. When the SOTS receives
the notice, the electoral process begins according to municipal election law. If the
notice is delivered before the time specified in law for party nominations for
municipal offices, the office can be placed, with the approval of the local
legislative body, on the ballot of a regular fall election.

COMMISSIONER'S NETWORK SCHOOLS

The bill establishes the education commissioner's network of schools to improve
the student academic achievement in low-performing schools and establishes steps
the commissioner, district turnaround committees, and local and regional boards of
education must take regarding the network. On or before July 1, 2014, the

                                         50
commissioner must select up to 25 schools that have been classified as a category
four or a category five school to participate in the network.

He must also follow the following criteria the bill establishes:

1. give preference for selection in the network schools (a) that volunteer to
participate in the network, provided the board of education for the school and the
school district unions mutually agree to participate, or (b) the existing union
agreements for teachers and administrators will expire in the school year in which
a turnaround plan will be implemented, and

2. must not select more than two schools from a single school district in a single
school year and must not select more than four in total from a single district.

Schools must be in the network for between three and five years and the bill details
steps take must be taken before a school can leave the network.

The commissioner must provide funding, technical assistance and operational
support to schools participating in the commissioner's network of schools and may
provide financial support to teachers and administrators working at a school that is
participating in the commissioner's network of schools. The State Board of
Education (SBE) must pay all costs attributable to developing and implementing a
turnaround plan in excess of the ordinary operating expenses for the school.

Each school selected for the network must begin implementation of a turnaround
plan, as described in the bill, not later than the school year commencing July 1,
2014.

The bill details (1) numerous steps regarding establishing a turnaround committee
for each district to develop turnaround plans for network schools, (2) how those
plans are approved and implemented, (3) limits on the number non-profit private
entities that may manage network schools, (4) the transition out of the network,
and (5) reporting requirements for commissioner regarding the network

Turnaround Committee

Once a school is selected by the commissioner, that school's local or regional board
of education must establish a turnaround committee for the school district. The
turnaround committee must consist of the following members:



                                          51
1. the board appoints two members, one of whom must be an administrator
employed by the board and one of whom must be the parent or guardian of a
student enrolled in the school district;

2. the teachers union appoints three members, at least two of whom must be
teachers employed by the board and at least one of whom must be the parent or
guardian of a student enrolled in the school district; and

3. the commissioner, or his designee.

The district superintendent, or his or her designee, is a nonvoting ex-officio
member and serves as the chairperson of the turnaround committee.

The turnaround committee, in consultation with the school governance council for
a network school selected must

1. assist SDE in conducting the operations and instructional audit required under
this section (see below),

2. develop a turnaround plan for the school in accordance with this section (see
below) and guidelines issued by the commissioner, and

3. monitor the implementation of such turnaround plan.

The commissioner's guidelines must include annual deadlines for turnaround plan
submission and annual deadlines for approval or rejection of turnaround plans.

Network School Audit and Inventory

The bill requires SDE to conduct an operations and instructional audit of each
school selected to participate in the commissioner's network. SDE must conduct
the audit following the establishment of a turnaround committee and in
consultation with the school's (1) local or regional board of education, (2)
governance council, and (3) turnaround committee.

Turnaround Plan

The bill requires the turnaround committee to develop a turnaround plan for such
school after the operations and instructional audit is completed.

The turnaround plan must:

                                        52
1. include a description of how such turnaround plan will improve student
academic achievement in the school,

2. address deficiencies identified in the operations and instructional audit, and

3. utilize one of the turnaround models provided in the bill.

The model options are:

1. CommPACT school (section 10-74g),

2. Social development model,

3. RESC management or governance

4. school reorganization model with themed academies, required block scheduling
for math and literacy, and frequent student assessments (section 10-74f),

5. Model developed by turnaround committee the uses best practices with proven
record used at public schools, interdistrict magnet schools and charter schools or
collected by the commissioner according to this section

6. Model adopted in consultation with commissioner or by commissioner using a
private non-profit educational management organization according to the
limitations below.

The turnaround plan may include proposals changing the hours and schedules of
teachers and administrators at such school, the length and schedule of the school
day, the length and calendar of the school year, the amount of time teachers must
be present in the school beyond the regular school day and the hiring or
reassignment of teachers or administrators at such school.

If a turnaround committee does not develop a turnaround plan, or if the
commissioner determines that a turnaround plan developed by a turnaround
committee is deficient, the commissioner may develop a turnaround plan for the
school in accordance with this section. When the commissioner develops a plan, he
may appoint a special master to implement it.

The turnaround plan must direct all resources and funding to programs and
services delivered at the school for the educational benefit of the students enrolled
there and be transparent and accountable to the local community. SBE must

                                          53
approve the turnaround plan developed by a turnaround committee before a school
may implement it.

For the school year beginning July 1, 2012, the commissioner will develop one
turnaround plan for a school selected to participate in the network. The turnaround
plan must be implemented for the school year commencing July 1, 2012 and may
assign the management, administration or governance of the school to an approved
not-for-profit educational management organization (as defined below in the bill),
and shall negotiate matters relating to such turnaround plan in accordance with the
provisions § 20 of the bill relating to circumstances when a turnaround committee
fails to reach consensus or the commissioner develops the turnaround plan.

The school governance council for each turnaround school may recommend a
turnaround model to the turnaround committee for the council's school (low
achieving schools are required by law to have councils). The council can choose
from model 1 through 5 on the list above. The turnaround committee may accept
the recommendation or may choose a different turnaround model to include in the
plan.

Limits on Assigning Control to Non-Profit Management

The bill defines "approved not-for-profit educational management organization"
and places limits on how many network schools these management organizations
can be selected to operate.

The commissioner cannot permit more than one turnaround committee to choose a
management organization to manage, administer or govern a network school for
the school year beginning July 1, 2012. He cannot permit more than five total
committees to select a management organization for the school years beginning
July 1, 2013, or July 1, 2014. Also the commissioner may not permit more than
three to be chosen for a single year.

The turnaround plan shall not assign the management, administration or
governance of such school to a (1) for-profit corporation, or (2) a private not-for-
profit organization unless it is a college or university or an approved not-for-profit
education management organization, as defined and approved under the bill. The
bill prohibits the commissioner form allowing a turnaround committee to assign
the management, administration or governance of such school to a for-profit
corporation.

Partnering to Compile Best Practices
                                         54
The bill permits the commissioner to partner with any public or private college or
university in the state for up to a year to assist SDE in collecting, compiling and
replicating strategies, methods and best practices that have been proven to be
effective in improving student academic performance in public schools,
interdistrict magnet schools and charter schools.

The commissioner must make these strategies, methods, and best practices
available to local and regional boards of education and turnaround committees for
use in developing a turnaround model and in implementing a school's turnaround
plan.

Collective Bargaining, Contract Modifications and Election to Work Agreements

Nothing in the network provisions will alter the union agreements applicable to the
administrators and teachers employed by the local board of education, subject to
the Teachers Negotiations Act (TNA) and the agreements must be considered to be
in operation at schools participating in the commissioner's network of schools,
except to the extent the provisions are modified by (1) any memorandum of
understanding between the board of education and the administrators or teachers
union or (2) a turnaround plan, including, but not limited to, an election to work
agreement pursuant to the turnaround plan for the school and negotiated.

Transition Out of the Network

Each school participates in the network for at least three years with the option of
up to two one year extensions. The commissioner will evaluate schools prior to the
end of year three to determine whether the school is ready to exit the network. In
determining whether a school may exit the network, the commissioner must
consider whether the local or regional board of education has the capacity to ensure
that the school will maintain or improve its student academic performance.

If school is determined to be ready to exit, the local school board, in consultation
with the commissioner, must develop a plan for transition back to local control and
the SBE must approve the plan.

If such school is not ready to exit the network it must participate in the
commissioner's network of schools for an additional year, and the commissioner
must conduct an evaluation of the school. Before the end of the fifth year that a
school is in the network, he must develop, in consultation with the local or regional
board of education for the school, a plan, subject to SBE approval, for the

                                         55
transition of the school back to full control by the local or regional board of
education.

Audit Due from Commissioner

The bill requires the education commissioner to submit a network school's
operations and instructional audit and turnaround plan to the legislature's
Education Committee no later than 30 days after SBE approves the plan.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND TURNAROUND PLANS

The bill requires the local school board and the teachers or administrators' union to
negotiate on any matters in an approved turnaround plan or a plan developed by
the commissioner that conflict with provisions of an existing union contract.

It sets out two detailed tracks for these negotiations, one for turnaround plans
agreed to at the local level and approved by SBE and another when (1) there is no
consensus on the local plan, (2) the commissioner deems a the local plan deficient,
or (3) no local plan is developed. For the track regarding non-consensus or no
sufficient paln, a bargaining referee must determine whether the matters that
conflict with the existing agreement are to be negotiated under existing bargaining
parameters or through impact bargaining.

Under either track, if negotiations reach impasse, then an expedited arbitration
process is used and any arbitration decision is final and binding.

Consensus Plan Track

When the members of the turnaround reach consensus on a plan and SBE approves
it, the affected unions and the school board for the network school must negotiate
with respect to salary, hours, and other conditions of employment any matter in the
turnaround plan that conflicts with an existing union agreement. The negotiations
must be completed no later than 30 days from the date when consensus is reached
by the turnaround committee.

Any agreement reached by the parties through negotiations under this section must
be submitted for approval by the union members and is ratified upon a majority
vote of the members. Upon such ratification, such turnaround plan must be
implemented at such school.



                                         56
If (1) the parties reach an impasse on one or more issues or (2) the members of the
union fails to ratify the proposed agreement, then the parties must proceed to the
expedited arbitration process described in this section (see below). The decision
resulting from the expedited arbitration is final and binding and included in the
turnaround plan. The turnaround plan must then be implemented at the school.

Non-Consensus, No Plan, or Deficient Plan Track

When there is no consensus on the local plan, the commissioner deems the local
plan deficient, or no local plan is developed the commissioner, in consultation with
teachers and parents of the school, must develop a plan.

The bill establishes a process for these plans when the school board and the unions
agree on all components of the commissioner's plan or they disagree on all or
certain components of it.

If the board of education and the union agree on (1) all components or (2) certain
components of the turnaround plan, the board and the union must negotiate only
the financial impact of the agreed upon components of the plan for those matters
that conflicts with an existing union contract. The negotiations must be completed
no later than 30 days from the date when consensus is reached by the turnaround
committee.

Any agreement reached by the parties through negotiations must be submitted for
approval by the union members and is ratified upon a majority vote of the
members. Upon such ratification, such turnaround plan components must be
implemented at such school.

If the parties reach impasse in negotiations or the proposed agreement is not
ratified, the parties proceed to the expedited arbitration process described in this
section. The decision resulting from such expedited arbitration is final and binding
and included in the turnaround plan. Such components of the turnaround plan must
then be implemented at such school.

If the board of education and the union agree on do not agree on (1) all
components of the turnaround plan or (2) certain components of such turnaround
plan, the parties shall jointly select a turnaround plan referee from the list created
under the bill (see section 21).

The turnaround plan referee must determine what type of negotiations apply to the
components where there is no agreement. If the components are deemed to be
                                         57
significantly different from what is comparable to a public school with a record of
academic success, then the components will be subject to bargaining that includes
salaries, hours, and conditions of employment. If the components are deemed to be
comparable to a public school with a record of academic success, then the
components are only subject to financial impact bargaining.

Under either full or impact bargaining, the negotiations must be completed not
later than 30 days from the date when the agreement is reached by the turnaround
committee.

Any agreement reached by the parties through negotiations must be submitted for
approval by the union members and is ratified upon a majority vote of the
members. Upon such ratification, such turnaround plan components must be
implemented at such school.

If the parties reach impasse in negotiations or the proposed agreement is not
ratified, the parties proceed to the expedited arbitration process described in this
section. The decision resulting from such expedited arbitration is final and binding
and included in the turnaround plan. Such components of the turnaround plan must
then be implemented at such school.

Impasse in Either Track

No later than five days after the date the parties reach impasse on one or more
issues or the union fails to ratify an agreement, the parties must select a single
impartial arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Teachers Negotiations
Act. No later than 10 days after the arbitrator's selection, he or she must hold a
hearing in the town that the school is located. At the hearing, the parties must
submit to the arbitrator their respective positions on each individual issue in
dispute between them in the form of a last best offer. The commissioner or his
designee must have an opportunity to make a presentation at the hearing. Not later
than 20 days following the close of the hearing, the arbitrator must render a
decision, in writing, that he or she signs, which states in detail the nature of the
decision and the disposition of the issues.

The arbitrator must give the highest priority to the educational interests of the state,
pursuant state law, as such interests relate to the children enrolled in the school in
arriving at a decision and must consider other factors as described in the TNA, in
light of the educational interests. The decision is final and binding and included in
the turnaround plan. The turnaround plan must then be implemented at the school.

                                          58
TURNAROUND PLAN REFEREES

The bill requires the education commissioner, by July 1, 2012, to create a list of
five turnaround plan referees to be used by local or regional boards of education
for commissioner's network schools and their employee bargaining units in
negotiating matters in turnaround plans that conflict with existing collective
bargaining agreements. The referees must (1) have expertise in education policy
and school operations and administration and (2) be mutually agreed upon by the
education commissioner and the unions representing teachers and administrators..

NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL                    MANAGEMENT             ORGANIZATION
REQUIREMENTS

The bill requires a nonprofit educational management organization that manages,
administers, or governs a commissioner's network school implanting a turnaround
plan to annually submit to the education commissioner a report on the school's
operations. The organization must make the report publicly available

The reporting requirement must be included in each contract between the
organization and the school's local or regional board of education. The contract
must also state the organization's services and fees and outline the circumstances in
which the board may terminate the contract.

The bill requires the management organization to continue the school's enrollment
policies and practices that were in effect before entering into the commissioner's
network. It specifies that the organization is not the employer of the school's
principal, administrators, or teachers.

SCHOOL GOVERNANCE COUNCILS

The bill makes changes to the law regarding school governance councils.

The law (1) requires boards of education that have jurisdiction over schools
designated as low-achieving to establish a school governance council for each such
school and (2) allows boards with schools designated as “in need of improvement”
to create them. The law also makes exceptions to the requirement for (1) schools
with only one grade and (2) governance councils that were already in place when
the governance council law was enacted, if they involve teachers, parents, and
others.



                                         59
After July 1, 2012, the bill requires all school boards that have category four and
five schools to establish councils for each of those schools.

By law, the councils must consist of seven parents or guardians of students, two
community leaders within the school district, five teachers who teach in the school,
and one nonvoting member who is the principal or his or her designee. Councils
for high schools must also have two nonvoting student members.

The councils have a number of responsibilities named in statute including
analyzing school achievement data, participating in hiring the principal and other
administrators, and developing and approving a written parent involvement policy.
A council may also recommend that a school be reconstituted and this
recommendation sets off a series of statutorily required steps.

STATE AND LOCAL CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING

Grant to State Charter Schools

The bill increases the state's annual per-student grant to state charter schools over
three years from $9,400 to $11,500. It increases the grant from $9,400 to $10,500
for FY 13, $11,000 for FY 14, and $11,500 for FY 15 and subsequent fiscal years.

Local Charter Schools

State Grants. Starting in FY 14, the bill allows SBE, within available
appropriations, to approve (1) operating grants of up to $3,000 per student and (2)
grants of up to $500,000 for startup costs for local charter schools to be established
on or after July 1, 2012. The grants are payable only if the board of education for
the charter school and the union representing the board's certified employees
mutually agree on staffing flexibility in the school and the SBE approves the
agreement.

To be eligible for an operating or startup grant, SBE must determine that the
applicant has:

1. high-quality, feasible strategies for, or a record of success in, serving
educationally needy students, i.e., those who (a) have a history of low academic
performance or behavioral or social difficulties, (b) receive free or reduced-price
school lunches, (c) are eligible for special education, or (d) are English language
learners (ELLs); or


                                         60
2. a high-quality, feasible plan for, or a record of success in, turning around
existing schools that have consistently substandard student performance.

The eligible charter school must (1) apply to SBE for the grant as the board
prescribes and (2) if it receives a grant, file reports and financial statements the
education commissioner requires. SDE may (1) redistribute unspent funds
appropriated for startup grants for the same purposes in the next fiscal year and (2)
develop needed criteria and guidelines to administer the grants.

District Contribution. Under current law, the school board of a local charter school
student's home district must pay the school's fiscal authority the per-student
amount specified in the school's charter. The payment must include reasonable
special education costs for a student requiring special education. The bill also
requires the board's support to at least equal its per-pupil cost for the prior fiscal
year, minus any per-pupil special education costs paid by a student's home district,
multiplied by the number of students attending the school in the current fiscal year.

The bill defines the district's per-pupil cost as its net current expenditures for
education divided by the number of public school students enrolled at the board's
expense as of October 1st or the immediately preceding full school day, plus the
number of students who attended full-time summer school sessions at district
expense in the preceding summer.

State Grants to Charter Schools To Be Paid Through Towns

The bill requires the state to pay grants for state and local charter schools to the
town where each school is located as an addition to the town's ECS grant. It
requires towns to pay the amounts the education commissioner must designate to
each charter school's fiscal authority.

The state grants covered by these payment provisions are the:

1. per-student grants of (a) $10,500 to state charter schools and (b) up to $3,000 for
qualifying new local charter schools and

2. startup grants of up to (a) $25,000 for new state charter schools that help the
state meet the desegregation goals of the 2008 Sheff settlement agreement and (b)
$500,000 for qualifying new local charter schools.

To accommodate payments through towns, the bill requires the state to pay the
charter school per-student amounts to towns according to the following schedule:
                                         61
(1) 25% by July 1 and September 1 based on estimated charter school student
enrollment on May 1, and (2) 25% by January 1 and the reminder by April 15 th
based on the school's actual enrollment as of October 1. Towns must in turn pay
the charter schools (1) 25% of the required amounts by July 15 and September 15,
(2) 25% by January 15, and (3) the remainder by April 15.

The bill also requires towns to pay $500,000 startup grants to local charter schools
by July 15th.

APPROVAL OF NEW CHARTER SCHOOLS

New Charter Schools

Starting July 1, 2012, the bill allows SBE to grant new state and local charters only
to schools located in towns that, at the time of the application, have (1) at least one
school participating in the commissioner's network or (2) a school district
designated as low-achieving. Current law does not limit charter school locations.

In addition, the bill requires two of the first four new state charter schools the SBE
approves between July 1, 2012 and July 1, 2017 to be schools whose specialized
focus is providing a dual language or other program models focusing on language
acquisition by English language learners. (A dual language program is a two-way
bilingual program that integrates language minority and language majority students
and provides instruction in both the minority language (such as Spanish) and
English.)

The bill also requires charter school applicants, in describing their student
admission procedures that ensure open access on a space available basis, to also
ensure that they allow students to enroll in the school during the school year if
spaces are available.

Charter School Preferences

The bill adds to the types of schools to which SBE must give preference when
reviewing charter school applications. The law already requires the board to give a
preference to charter applications containing certain elements, such as schools
located in priority districts or in districts where student populations are at least
75% minority. The bill requires SBE to also give preference to applications whose
primary purpose is to:



                                          62
1. serve students (a) with a history of low academic performance or behavioral and
social difficulties, (b) receiving free or reduced priced lunches, (c) requiring
special education, (d) who are ELLs, or (e) who are of a single gender; or

2. improve the academic performance of an existing school that has consistently
demonstrated substandard academic performance, as determined by the education
commissioner.

In addition to providing the preference for serving one or more of the educationally
needy populations mentioned above, SBE must give preference to applications that
demonstrate highly credible and specific strategies to attract, enroll, and retain such
students. Charter applications must include student recruitment and retention plans
that clearly describe (1) the school's capacity to recruit and retain such students and
(2) how it plans to do so.

Charter Renewals

The bill gives SBE an additional reason to deny a charter school's renewal
application. That reason is the school's insufficient efforts to effectively attract,
enroll, and retain all of the educationally needy students mentioned above except
students of a single gender.

Waiver of Enrollment Lottery

By law, if a charter school has more students applying for enrollment than it has
spaces, it must hold an enrollment lottery of those applicants to determine
admissions. The bill allows the SBE, upon application, to waive the lottery
requirement for schools with a primary purpose of serving at least one of the
following: (1) students with a history of behavioral and social difficulties; (2)
special education students; (3) ELLs; or (4) students of a single gender.

The bill bars enrollment lotteries for any public school with a school performance
index that places it in the lowest-performing 5% of schools that is converted to a
local charter school.

CHARTER SCHOOL OPT-OUT LOTTERY STUDY

The bill requires SDE to study “opt-out lotteries” for determining enrollment in
state and local charter schools. Such lotteries automatically include all students
who (1) live in the district where the school is located and (2) are enrolled in any
grade the school serves, unless a student chooses not to participate. The study must
                                          63
cover (1) the feasibility of charter school governing authorities and boards of
education for districts where they are located conducting such lotteries for state
charter schools, (2) the methods by which they may be conducted, and (3) the costs
of doing so.

SDE must report the study's results and any recommendations to the Education
Committee by February 1, 2014.

ALLIANCE DISTRICTS

The bill requires the education commissioner to hold back Education Cost Sharing
(ECS) grant increases to towns with the lowest-performing school districts and
establishes conditions for releasing the funds. The school districts subject to the
conditional funding are called “alliance districts.”

Designating the Districts

An alliance district is a town whose school district is among those with the lowest
academic performance as measured by a district performance index (DPI) the bill
establishes. For FY 13, the bill requires the education commissioner to designate
30 alliance districts. Districts keep the designation for five years. The
commissioner must determine, by June 30, 2016, whether to designate additional
alliance districts.

The bill also establishes a subcategory of alliance districts called “educational
reform districts,” which are the 10 districts with the lowest DPIs.

District Performance Index

A town's DPI is its students' weighted performance on the statewide mastery tests
in reading, writing, and mathematics given in grades three through eight and 10,
and science in grades five, eight, and 10.

test scores.

Under the bill, the test score data used for the index is either (1) the data of record
on the December 31st following the tests, or (2) that data as adjusted by SDE
according to a board of education's request for an adjustment filed by the
November 30th following the test.

Conditional Funding

                                          64
The bill requires the state comptroller to hold back any ECS grant increase over the
prior year's grant that is payable to an alliance district town in FY 13 or any
subsequent fiscal year. The comptroller must transfer the money to the education
commissioner. An alliance district may apply to receive its ECS grant increase
when and how the education commissioner prescribes. The bill allows the
commissioner to pay the funds to the district on condition that they are spent
according to its approved district improvement plan (see below) and guidelines the
bill allows SBE to adopt.

The bill requires any balance of the conditional ECS funds allocated to each
alliance district that remains unspent at the end of any fiscal year to be carried over
and remain available to the district for the following fiscal year.

District Improvement Plan

Alliance districts must use their conditional ECS funding to improve local
achievement and offset other local education costs the commissioner approves. To
be eligible to receive the funds, a district must submit an application to the
commissioner. The application must contain objectives and performance targets as
well as an improvement plan.

State Oversight

The bill allows the commissioner to (1) withhold conditional funding if an alliance
district fails to comply with the bill's requirements and (2) renew the funding if a
district's school board provides evidence that the district is meeting the objectives
and performance targets of its plan.

Districts receiving conditional funding must submit annual expenditure reports in a
form and manner the commissioner prescribes. The commissioner must determine
whether to (1) require a district to repay amounts not spent in accordance with its
approved application or (2) reduce the district's grant by that amount in a
subsequent year.

EXPANDED CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE                            REQUIREMENTS            FOR
TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS

Starting July 1, 2015, the bill requires teacher preparation programs to require, as
part of their curricula, that students have classroom clinical, field, or student
teaching experience during four semesters of the program.

                                          65
PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR CERTIFICATES

Initial Issuance

Connecticut has a three-level certification system for public school teachers and
administrators: initial, provisional, and professional. Under current law,
professional certificates are valid for five years and may be renewed only if the
teacher or administrator completes 90 hours of continuing education, known as
continuing education units (CEUs).

Starting July 1, 2016, the bill raises the qualifications for a professional certificate
by requiring applicants to hold a master's degree rather than, as current law
requires, to successfully complete (1) before July 1, 2016, 30 hours of graduate or
undergraduate credit beyond a bachelor's degree or (2) on or after July 1, 2016, 30
hours of graduate credit. The master's degree must be in a subject appropriate to
the person's certification endorsement, as determined by SBE.

The bill extends the same master's degree requirement to a certified teacher who
has taught in another state, U.S. possession or territory, the District of Columbia,
or Puerto Rico and applies for a Connecticut professional certificate (§ 40).

Renewal

The bill eliminates the requirement that a professional certificate holder complete
90 CEUs in order to renew his or her professional certificate. Instead, it makes the
certificate valid for five years and requires that it be continued every five years.
Under the bill, all certificate holders must participate in professional development
activities, which replace the CEU requirements starting July 1, 2013 (see § 39).

Exemption from TEAM Program

The bill makes two exceptions to the requirement that all candidates for
provisional educator certificates successfully complete the Teacher Education and
Mentoring (TEAM) program if there is one for his or her endorsement area. It
exempts any applicant who has taught:

1. under an appropriate certificate from another U.S. state, territory, or possession,
the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico for at least three years in the last 10 or

2. in an SBE-approved nonpublic school in Connecticut for at least three years in
the last 10.

                                          66
DISTINGUISHED EDUCATOR DESIGNATION

The bill establishes a new distinguished educator designation for a person who:

1. holds a professional educator certificate,

2. has taught successfully for at least five years in a public school or SBE-approved
private special education facility,

3. has advanced education in addition to a master's degree from a degree or non-
degree-granting institution that can include training in mentorship or coaching
teachers, and

4. meets performance requirements established by SDE.

The SDE's performance standards for the designation must consider demonstrated
distinguished practice as validated by SDE or its approved validator. The SBE
must renew the designation every five years if the person continues to meet the
performance standards as validated by SBE or an SBE-approved entity. The bill
makes teachers with distinguished educator designations, as well professional and
provisional certificates, eligible to serve as mentors in the TEAM program.

The bill establishes fees of $200 for a distinguished educator designation
application and $50 for a duplicate copy of the designation. The education
commissioner can waive the fees if he determines that an applicant cannot pay
because of extenuating circumstances.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EDUCATORS

Starting July 1, 2013, it requires all certified employees, including initial and
provisional certificate holders, to participate in professional development
programs. Under current law, initial and provisional certificate holders do not need
CEUs.

The bill revises professional development to emphasize improved practice and
individual and small-group coaching sessions. It continues current requirements
that districts (1) offer professional development according to plans developed
consultation with a professional development committee consisting of the district's
certified personnel and other appropriate members; (2) determine specific
professional development activities with the advice and help of their teachers,


                                          67
including their union representatives; and (3) and that the activities give full
consideration to SBE's priorities related to student achievement.

New Design for Professional Development

By law, school districts must make available at least 18 hours of professional
development for certified employees at no cost. The bill requires that a
preponderance of the 18 hours be in a small-group or individual instructional
setting and to:

1. improve integration of (a) reading instruction, (b) literacy and numeracy
enhancement, and (c) cultural awareness, and include strategies to improve English
language learner instruction into teacher practice;

2. be used to improve teacher and administrator practice based on general results
and findings from teacher evaluations reported by the school superintendent or
designee;

3. foster collective responsibility for improved student performance;

4. be comprehensive, sustained, and intensive enough to improve teacher and
administrator effectiveness in raising student achievement;

5. focus on refining and improving effective teaching methods shared among
educators and fostering collective responsibility for improving student
performance;

6. be (a) aligned with state student academic achievement standards, (b) conducted
among educators at the school, and (c) facilitated by principals, coaches, mentors,
distinguished educators, or other appropriate teachers;

7. occur frequently for teachers individually or in groups, within their jobs, and as
part of a continuous improvement process; and

8. include a repository of teaching best practices developed by each school's
educators which is continuously available to them for comments and updates.

It also requires the education commissioner, rather than the SBE, to approve
continuing education providers that are not either boards of education or RESCs.

Professional Development Content

                                         68
The bill maintains a requirement that school superintendents and other
administrators complete at least 15 hours of professional development every five
years in teacher evaluation and support. It eliminates the following professional
development requirements:

1. for those with childhood nursery through grade three or elementary
endorsements, at least 15 hours of training in teaching reading, reading readiness,
and reading assessment;

2. for those with elementary, middle, or secondary academic endorsements, at least
15 hours in how to use computers in the classroom unless they can demonstrate
competency; and

3. for those with bilingual endorsements, training in language arts, reading, or math
for elementary school teachers and in the subject they teach, for middle and
secondary school teachers.

It also eliminates (1) professional development completion deadline extensions for
certificate holders who were unemployed or members of the General Assembly
during the five-year period, (2) a requirement that professional certificate holders
attest that they have successfully completed the 90 CEUs at the end of each five-
year period, and (3) a requirement that the state and local school districts share the
cost of required professional development activities.

SDE Audits and Penalties

By law, SDE must notify a school board of its failure to meet the professional
development requirements. The bill also requires SDE to audit district professional
development programs and allows SBE to assess financial penalties against
districts it finds out of compliance based on such an audit.

Under the bill, SBE can require a school board to forfeit an SBE-determined
amount from its state grants, to be assessed in the fiscal year after the
determination of noncompliance. SBE can waive the penalty if it determines the
noncompliance was due to circumstances beyond the school board's control.

TEACHER EVALUATION PROGRAMS

The bill expands the required components of (1) state guidelines for a model
teacher evaluation program and (2) local school districts' teacher and school
administrator evaluation programs. By law, SBE, in consultation with the PEAC,
                                         69
must adopt guidelines for the model program by July 1, 2012. Teacher evaluation
programs used by local school districts must be consistent with the state's model.

New Requirements. The bill also requires the guidelines to provide for:

1. using four ratings to evaluate teacher performance: (a) exemplary, (b) proficient,
(c) developing, and (d) below standard;

2. scoring systems to determine the ratings;

3. periodic training on the evaluation program both for teachers being evaluated
and for administrators performing evaluations, offered by the school district or its
RESC;

4. professional development based on individual or group needs identified through
evaluations;

5. opportunities for career development and professional growth; and

6. a validation procedure for SDE or an SDE-approved third party entity to audit
ratings of below standard or exemplary.

Remediation Plans. For teachers whose performance is rated below standard or
developing, the bill requires the guidelines to call for improvement and
remediation plans that:

1. are developed in consultation with the affected employee and his or her union
representative;

2. identify resources, support, and other methods to address documented
deficiencies;

3. show a timeline for implementing such measures in the same school year as the
plan is issued; and

4. provide success indicators that include a minimum overall rating of proficient at
the end of the improvement and remediation plan.

School District Teacher Evaluation Programs

Local Plan Requirements. By law, a school superintendent must “continuously”
evaluate his or her school district's teachers or cause them to be evaluated.
                                         70
(“Teachers” include all certified professional employees below the rank of
superintendent.) School boards must develop the evaluation programs with the
advice and assistance of the teachers' and school administrators' collective
bargaining representatives. They must be consistent with SBE guidelines and with
any other guidelines established by mutual agreement between the board and the
unions. Evaluations must address, at least, a teacher's strengths, areas needing
improvement, improvement strategies, and multiple indicators of student academic
growth.

The bill requires district evaluations to (1) be carried out annually; (2) include
support as well as evaluation; and (3) be consistent with model guidelines adopted
by SBE. It allows district programs to include periodic (“formative”) evaluations
during the year leading up to the final, overall (“summative”) annual evaluation.
Under the bill, any teacher or administrator who does not receive a summative
evaluation during the school year must receive a rating of “not rated” for that year.

Waivers. The bill allows SBE to waive the requirement of consistency with SBE's
model guidelines for any district that, before the model guidelines are validated,
developed a teacher evaluation program that SBE determines substantially
complies with the guidelines.

Status Reports on Local Evaluations. Current law requires each superintendent to
report to his or her board of education by June 1 annually on the status of the
evaluations. The bill also requires superintendents to report annually, by June 30,
to the education commissioner on the implementation of evaluations, including
their frequency, aggregate evaluation ratings, the numbers of teacher and
administrators not evaluated, and other requirements as determined by SDE.

TEACHER EVALUATION AND SUPPORT PILOT PROGRAM

The bill requires the education commissioner to administer a teacher evaluation
pilot program for the 2012-13 school year. The commissioner must select at least
eight but no more than 10 districts to participate in the pilot. For purposes of the
pilot evaluation programs, the bill defines “teacher” to include administrators.

By May 25, 2012, districts may apply, in a form and manner the commissioner
prescribes, to participate in the pilot program. The commissioner must select a
diverse group of rural, suburban, and urban districts with varying student academic
performance levels to participate in the pilot. If there are not enough applicants to
meet these requirements, the bill allows the commissioner to select districts to
participate.
                                         71
NEAG STUDY OF PILOT PROGRAM

The bill requires UConn's Neag School of Education to:

1. analyze and evaluate the pilot program's implementation for each participating
district,

2. compare each district's evaluation program to the SBE guidelines, and

3. compare and evaluate performance data from mastery and progress monitoring
tests as indicators of, and methods of assessing, student academic growth and
development.

When it completes the study, but no later than January 1, 2014, Neag must submit
(1) the study results and any recommendations on validating the SBE's teacher
evaluation guidelines to SBE and (2) the study itself to the Education Committee

EVALUATION TRAINING

Before implementing the teacher evaluation and support program, but no later than
July 1, 2014, the bill requires school boards to provide training for all evaluators
and orientation to all teachers they employ regarding the evaluation and support
program. Evaluators must be trained before they conduct any evaluations under the
new program and each teacher must complete the orientation before being
evaluated.

ANNUAL SDE AUDITS OF EVALUATION PROGRAMS

Each year starting July 1, 2014, the bill requires the education commissioner,
within available appropriations, to randomly select at least 10 district evaluation
programs for a comprehensive SDE audit. SDE must submit audit results to the
Education Committee.

ONGOING EVALUATION TRAINING

The bill requires each board of education, as part of its regular in-service training
for certified teachers, administrators, and pupil personnel, to provide information
on its teacher evaluation and support program.

TEACHER TENURE AND TERMINATION


                                         72
The bill requires school superintendents to incorporate evaluations into decisions
about granting tenure and gives local and regional boards of education additional
grounds to terminate a teacher for cause. It streamlines and shortens teacher
termination notice and hearing requirements and specifies that most deadlines in
the process must be counted in calendar days. Under both current law and the bill,
the tenure and termination provisions apply to all certified professional school
board employees below the rank of school superintendent who are defined
collectively as “teachers.”

Granting Tenure

By law, to attain tenure in a particular school district, a certified employee must (1)
have completed a specified period of continuous service with the school district
and (2) be offered a contract to return the following year. Under the bill, the school
superintendent must base the contract decision on effective practice as informed by
the teacher's performance evaluations.

Grounds for Teacher Termination

By law, a teacher may be dismissed only for specified reasons. In addition, a board
of education may notify a nontenured teacher, in writing, by May 1st of any school
year that his or her contract will not be renewed for the following year.

On or after July 1, 2014, this bill explicitly allows a district to terminate a teacher
on the grounds that he or she is ineffective as long as that determination is based
on evaluations that comply with SBE guidelines for evaluating teachers.

Termination Hearing Requirements and Procedures

By law, tenured and nontenured teachers are entitled to a hearing before being
terminated for cause. Nontenured teachers are also entitled to a hearing when their
contracts are not renewed for any reason other than elimination of the teacher's
position or loss of the position to another teacher (“bumping”).

The bill makes several changes to streamline the process for these hearings. It:

1. eliminates the maximum 14 days currently allowed for a tenured teacher who
receives a termination notice to file a written request for the reasons and the board
to provide written reasons and instead requires the board to state the reasons in the
written termination notice;


                                          73
2. for a nontenured teacher, establishes a three-day deadline after receiving notice
of termination or nonrenewal to request the reasons and reduces the deadline for
the board of education to supply written reasons from seven to four days after
receiving the teacher's request;

3. shortens the deadline for a teacher to request a hearing from 20 to 10 days after
he or she receives a termination or nonrenewal notice;

4. eliminates the teacher's or board's option to choose a hearing before a three-
member impartial hearing panel while maintaining existing options for a hearing
before (a) an impartial hearing officer chosen by the teacher and the school
superintendent, or (b) the full board of education or a three-member subcommittee;

5. requires hearings on terminations for incompetence or ineffectiveness to address
whether the teacher's performance ratings were (a) determined in good faith
according to the required evaluation procedures and (b) reasonable in light of the
evidence presented;

6. limits termination hearings for incompetence and ineffectiveness to a total of 12
hours of evidence and testimony, six for each side, while allowing the board, board
subcommittee, or hearing officer to extend the time for good cause shown; and

7. requires a board subcommittee or hearing officer to submit findings and
recommendations on the case to the board of education within 45, rather than 75,
days after the hearing request, unless the parties mutually agree to a maximum 15-
day extension.

Under both current law and the bill, once the board issues its written decision, a
teacher has 30 days to appeal that decision to Superior Court. The bill specifies that
this 30-day period is counted in calendar days.

SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT CERTIFICATION WAIVERS

Appointment as Acting Superintendent

The law requires a person serving as a school superintendent to have a Connecticut
superintendent certificate. But the law also allows a board of education, with the
education commissioner's approval, to appoint as acting school superintendent
someone who does not have a Connecticut certificate.



                                         74
The bill extends the maximum duration of an acting superintendent's appointment
from a specified period of up to 90 days, with commissioner-approved good cause
extensions, to up to one school year. It also:

1. makes the acting superintendent's term a probationary period;

2. requires the acting superintendent, during the probationary period, to
successfully complete an SBE-approved educational leadership program offered by
a Connecticut higher education institution; and

3. eliminates any option to extend an acting superintendent's employment beyond
the probationary period.

Instead, the bill allows an employing school board, at the end of a probationary
period, to ask the commissioner to waive certification, thus allowing the board to
appoint the acting superintendent as the district's permanent superintendent.

Superintendent Certification Waiver

By law, the education commissioner may waive certification for a school
superintendent who (1) has at least three years of successful experience in the past
10 in another state as a certified administrator in a public school with a
superintendent certificate issued by another state or (2) the commissioner considers
to be exceptionally qualified.

In the latter case, in addition to being exceptionally qualified, the bill also requires
the waiver candidate to have successfully completed the probationary period as an
acting superintendent. Current law only requires the person to be an acting
superintendent. The bill eliminates requirements that, to be exceptionally qualified,
the person also (1) have worked as a school superintendent in another state for at
least 15 years and (2) be or have been certified as a superintendent by the other
state.

EDUCATION COST SHARING (ECS) GRANT INCREASES FOR FY 13

The bill increases FY 13 ECS grants to 136 towns by various amounts listed in the
bill.

MINIMUM BUDGET REQUIREMENT FOR FY 13

MBR for FY 13

                                          75
By law, towns receiving ECS grants must budget minimum annual amounts for
education. This requirement is known as the minimum budget requirement (MBR).
Under current law and the bill, each town's base MBR for FY 13 is the amount
they budgeted for education in FY 12.

MBR Reductions

Current law allows a qualifying town to reduce its MBR for FY 12 and FY 13 if
(1) its school district enrollment falls compared to the prior year, by up to $3,000
times the drop in enrollment or (2) it has no high school and is paying tuition for
fewer students to attend high school in another district compared to the prior year,
by the per-student tuition rate times the drop in enrollment. Under current law,
both of these reductions are limited to 0.5% of the district's budgeted appropriation
for education for the prior fiscal year.

This bill:

1. for both FY 12 and FY 13, allows a district with no high school and that is
paying for fewer students to attend high school outside the district to reduce its
budgeted appropriation for education by the full amount of its lowered tuition
payments;

2. allows a town to reduce its MBR for FY 13 by up to 0.5% of its FY 12 budgeted
appropriation for education to reflect half of any new savings from (a) a regional
collaboration or cooperative arrangement with one or more other districts or (b)
increased efficiencies within its school district, as long as the savings can be
documented and the education commissioner approves; and

3. permits a district to use only one of the allowable MBR reduction options.

GRANT INCREASES FOR NON-SHEFF MAGNET SCHOOLS

Starting in FY 13, the bill increases annual state per-pupil operating grants for non-
Sheff interdistrict magnet schools as shown in Table 1. Non-Sheff magnets are
schools that do not explicitly help the state meet the goals of the 2008 settlement in
the Sheff v. O'Neill school desegregation case relating to Hartford and its
surrounding towns.

                Table 1: Increases for Non-Sheff Magnet Grants



                                         76
    Type of      Per-Student Grant
 Interdistrict
   Magnet       Current
                               Bill
    School        Law
Operated by         $6,730      $7,085
local school
district (“host
magnet”)
Operated by         $7,620      $7,900
RESC
(“RESC
magnet') with
less than 55%
of its students
from a single
town
RESC              For each For each
magnet with         student     student
55% or more            from        from
of its students outside the outside the
from a single    dominant dominant
town                  town:       town:
(“dominant                      $7,085
town”) – with       $6,730
one                           For each
exception         For each      student
(see below)         student from the
                  from the dominant
                 dominant         town:
                      town:     $3,000
                    $3,000
RESC              For each For each
magnet with         student     student
between 55%            from regardless
and 80% of      outside the           of
students from    dominant originating
a dominant            town:       town:
town                            $8,180

                  77
                                            $6,730

                                          For each
                                            student
                                          from the
                                         dominant
                                              town:
                                            $3,833

PER-STUDENT GRANT FOR VO-AG CENTERS

The bill increases the annual state grant for each student attending a regional
agricultural science and technology (“vo-ag”) center from $1,355 to $1,750. It also
prohibits local and regional boards of education that operate centers from using
any increase in state funding to supplant local education funding for FY 13 or any
subsequent fiscal year.

SUMMER SCHOOL AND EXTENDED DAY GRANT PHASE-OUTS FOR
FORMER PRIORITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Among other things, priority school districts receive state grants for (1) summer
school and weekend programs and (2) extending school hours to provide academic
enrichment and support and recreation programs for students in the district.
Starting with FY 14, this bill requires these grants to phase out over three years
once a district is no longer designated a priority district rather than ending them all
at once. Under the bill, a former priority district receives grants of 75%, 50%, and
25% of its final grant as a priority district in the three years following loss of
eligibility.

Towns qualify as priority districts based on high population or high concentrations
of students on welfare and students performing poorly on state mastery exams.
SDE designates the districts in the first year of each biennium. The current priority
districts are Ansonia, Bridgeport, Danbury, East Hartford, Hartford, Meriden, New
Britain, New Haven, New London, Norwalk, Norwich, Putnam, Stamford,
Waterbury, and Windham.

SPECIAL EDUCATION PAYMENTS FOR CHILDREN IN DMHAS
FACILITIES



                                          78
By law, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) must
provide regular and special education services to eligible residents in its facilities.
The bill transfers the responsibility for paying for these costs from SBE to
DMHAS. It also makes a conforming change to eliminate a requirement that SBE
pay for the costs in two installments.

BLOOMFIELD MAGNET SCHOOL EXEMPTION

The bill extends for an additional year, through FY 12, an exemption for the Big
Picture Magnet School, an approved interdistrict magnet school operated by
Bloomfield, from statutory student diversity requirements for interdistrict magnet
schools. These requirements (1) limit the number of students from any of the
school's participating towns to 75% of its total enrollment and (2) specify that
students of racial minorities must comprise at least 25% but no more than 75% of a
school's student body.

The bill's exemption allows the school to continue receiving a state magnet school
operating grant in FY 12. Starting July 1, 2012, the school must reopen as The
Global Experience Magnet School under an operation plan approved by the
education commissioner. For purposes of meeting diversity requirements for
interdistrict magnet schools, the bill specifies that the school is considered to have
begun operating as of that date, thus, by law, giving it until its second year of
operation to meet the desegregation requirements of the Sheff v. O'Neill settlement.
The education commissioner can grant an extension for one additional year.

TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL SYSTEM

The bill makes numerous changes to the technical high school system (CTHSS)
and creates a new 11-member board to govern it.

SDE WEBSITE INFORMATION

The bill requires SDE to annually make the following information available on its
website:

1. the statewide performance management and accountability plan required by the
amended school accountability law;

2. a list of schools ranked from lowest to highest by SPI;

3. the formula and method the department used to calculate each school's SPI, and

                                          79
4. the alternative versions of the formula used to calculate school subject indexes
for non-elementary grades.

INTENSIVE READING INSTRUCTION PROGRAM

For the school year beginning July 1, 2012, and each school year thereafter, the
commissioner must create an intensive reading instruction program to improve
student literacy in grades kindergarten to grade three, inclusive, and close the
achievement gap. The definition of achievement gap is the same in used in § 4 for
the early literacy pilot program.

The intensive reading instruction program must include:

1. routine reading assessments for students in kindergarten to grade three,
inclusive,

2. scientifically-based reading research and instruction,

3. an intensive reading intervention strategy, as described in the bill,

4. supplemental reading instruction and reading remediation plans, as described in
the bill, and

5. an intensive summer school reading program, as described in the bill.

For the school year commencing July 1, 2012, the commissioner shall select five
elementary schools that are (1) located in an educational reform district, as defined
in § 34 of the bill , (2) participating in the commissioner's network of schools,
pursuant to § 19 of the bill, or (3) among the lowest five per cent of elementary
schools in school subject performance indices for reading and mathematics, as
defined in § 18 of the bill, to participate in the intensive reading instruction
program and for the school year commencing July 1, 2013, and each school year
thereafter, the commissioner may select up to five such schools to participate in the
intensive reading instruction program.

It defines "scientifically-based reading research and instruction" as (1) a
comprehensive program or a collection of instructional practices based on reliable,
valid evidence showing that when such programs or practices are used, students
can be expected to achieve satisfactory reading progress, and (2) the integration of
instructional strategies for continuously assessing, evaluating and communicating
the student's reading progress and needs in order to design and implement ongoing

                                          80
interventions so that students of all ages and proficiency levels can read and
comprehend text and apply higher level thinking skills. The comprehensive
program or collection of practices must include, but not be limited to, instruction in
five areas of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text
comprehension.

MINORITY STUDENTS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION

The bill requires SDE to identify school districts that disproportionately and
inappropriately identify minority students as requiring special education due to
reading deficiencies. It requires these districts to submit annual reports to SDE
describing their plans to reduce the misidentification of minority students by
improving reading assessments and interventions for K-3 students.

Furthermore, the bill requires SDE to study the plans and strategies the districts use
that demonstrate improvement in this area. The SDE study must examine the
correlation between improvements in teacher training in the science of reading and
the reduction in misidentification of students requiring special education services.

For this section, “minority students” means those whose race is defined other than
white, or whose ethnicity is defined as Hispanic or Latino by the federal Office of
Management and Budget for U.S. Census use.

KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE THREE READING PROGRAM

The bill requires SDE by July 1, 2013, to develop a coordinated state-wide reading
plan for students in grades K-3 that contains research-driven strategies and
frameworks to produce effective reading instruction and improvement in student
performance.

REQUIREMENTS TO PASS READING INSTRUCTION TEST

Starting July 1, 2013, the bill requires certified teachers with the comprehensive
special education or remedial reading and language arts endorsements to pass the
reading instruction test approved by SBE on April 1, 2009.

SCHOOL INCENTIVE PROGRAM TO IMPROVE READING

The bill requires the education commissioner to establish an incentive program,
within available appropriations, for schools that:


                                         81
1. increase by 10% the number of students who meet reading goals on Connecticut
mastery tests and

2. demonstrate the methods and instruction the school used to achieve those
results.

The incentives can include, at the commissioner's discretion, public recognition,
financial rewards, and enhanced autonomy or operational flexibility. The bill
allows SDE to accept private donations for the program.

PRE-LITERACY COURSE

The bill requires the SDE, by July 1, 2013 and in consultation with the Board of
Regents for Higher Education, to design and approve a pre-literacy course for
inclusion in the bachelor's degree program with early childhood education
concentration offered by a higher education institution accredited by the Board of
Governors of Higher Education. The course must be practice-based and specific to
pre-literacy and language skills instruction for early childhood education teachers.

INFORMATION-SHARING SYSTEM

The bill requires the SDE to collaborate with the Governor's Early Care and
Education Cabinet to develop an information-sharing system between preschool
and school readiness programs and kindergarten about children's proficiency in
oral language and preliteracy.


The Senate passed the bill by a 28 to 7 vote, with Sen. Witkos (R-Canton), Sen.
Markley (R-Plantsville), Sen. McLachlan (R-Danbury), Sen. Roraback (R-
Goshen), Sen. Kane (R-Watertown), Sen. Guglielmo (R-Stafford Springs), Sen.
Frantz (R-Riverside). The bill was immediately transferred to the House, pursuant
to Joint Rule 17. In the House, Amendment Schedule ‘A’ was called, offered by
Rep. Lavielle (R-Wilton). Amendment ‘A’ would have added Republican
appointed representatives to the task force. House Amendment Schedule ‘A’
failed by a vote of 51 to 96. In the House, the bill passed in concurrence by a vote
of 149 to 0. The rules were suspended and the bill was immediately transmitted to
the Governor.




                                         82

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:6/4/2013
language:Unknown
pages:82
wu yunyi wu yunyi
About wuyyok@163.com