Education Legislative Report

2004 Legislative Session in Review

Issue No. 11 June 16, 2004

This is the final Education Legislative Report for the 2004 session of the General Assembly. In this issue, we discuss the matters that were resolved in this year’s session, as well as a few for which no conclusions were reached even though a significant amount of legislative time was devoted to them. This year we observed a legislature that was less focused on educational issues than has been the case in recent years. Perhaps because Act 68 demanded a concentrated effort in 2003, the 2004 session was generally satisfied to emphasize proposals in areas ranging from permit reform to the medical use of marijuana.

The session began with the introduction of our Report on Burdensome and Unfunded Mandates. The Commissioner’s response to the Report offered limited rationale for several of its recommendations, and it was accepted by the House and Senate Education Committees without significant comment. Our presentations of the Report to the committees were received without assurances that particular attention would be paid to many of the Report’s recommendations. The Mandates Report clearly had an effect on legislators, however, as the theme of “no unfunded mandates” was raised often when bills were being considered this year, and was adhered to with few minor exceptions.

Early Education: S.166. Perhaps the session’s most deliberate approach to a significant educational policy issue was taken by the Senate Education Committee on S.166, the early education bill. The Committee worked on S.166 for almost two years, ultimately sending a proposal to the Senate floor in early April that was endorsed by the members of the Senate by a surprising 28-0 margin. With such strong Senate support, there was some feeling in the State House that S.166 would get through the House Education Committee and onto the House floor before the end of the session even though it arrived in the House well after the session’s mid-point.

The essence of S.166 was found in its provisions that would have established a process for school districts and private providers of early education services to enter into agreements whereby early education funds received by districts would be used to help fund programs at qualifying private providers. In order to qualify, private providers would be required to meet standards established by national accrediting agencies and the Vermont Departments of Education and Social and Rehabilitation Services. When starting or expanding early education programs, school districts would have been required, under S.166, to use existing public and private qualified service providers unless, in individual cases, a district determined that to do so would not be efficient or effective. S.166 would also have established a uniform kindergarten entry date, and would have established weighted ADM counts for pre-school, part-time kindergarten and full-time kindergarten students.

The late arrival in the House of S.166 was cited by House Education Committee members as one rationale for not taking action on the bill. The issues raised by S.166 were seen as too significant to be resolved before planned adjournment in mid-May. So S.166 was “put on the wall” by the House Committee at the beginning of the last week of the session. Prior to giving up on early education, the Committee spent several weeks hearing from various opponents and proponents of S.166. In the end, the committee was unable to agree on the basic question: what should be the relationship between public school districts and private providers of early child care and education?

The end of any legislative session is ultimately welcomed by legislators as well as others who frequent the State House from January to May. By early May, legislators, legislative staff and others working in the legislative arena suffer from a certain amount of fatigue. For individual legislators, this feeling is undoubtedly accompanied by the need to accept the reality that few of their priorities for the session will be realized in the form of legislation passed. Of the 1108 bills introduced during this biennium, only 135 were ultimately enacted into law. This is often cited as a strength of our legislative system, which is designed to subject any public policy change to significant scrutiny. With the exception of the ever-present policy implications hidden in appropriations and institutions bills, no piece of proposed legislation escapes a thorough airing before committees and both legislative bodies prior to passage. The following education bills were among those considered at some length during the 2004 legislative session.

Harassment in Schools: Act 91; H.113

The enactment of H.113, now Act 91, means that there will be renewed attention to harassment policies and procedures in schools, and school officials will need to implement new procedural requirements for harassment investigations.

There are several provisions of Act 91 that should help to clarify the responsibilities of schools when there are allegations of harassment.

The first provision is a revision of the definition of harassment. For purposes of the Public Accommodations Act, harassment will be found when an incident or incidents, based upon a students’ status as a member of a protected class, substantially undermine or detract from his or her educational performance or access to school resources, or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive school environment.

The new definition eliminates a circular clause in the former statutory definition of harassment (“harassment means unlawful harassment”); and inserts a more objective standard to the evaluation of a given action’s effect on a student or on the school environment. In order to qualify as harassment under the new definition, conduct must objectively undermine a student’s educational performance or create an objectively hostile environment. In other words, it is not sufficient for one to claim that conduct has had a harassing effect; it must appear to an objective person that the claimed effect has occurred or was intended.

Actual notice of alleged conduct that might constitute harassment will, under the new law, require a school to “promptly investigate to determine whether harassment occurred.” As defined in the law, “notice” consists of written or oral “…information…provided to a designated employee from another employee, the student allegedly subjected to the harassment, another student, a parent or guardian, or any other individual who has knowledge of the alleged conduct.” In the case of oral notice, the school employee designated to receive harassment complaints will be required to prepare a written statement containing the specifics of the allegation and identifying the complainant as well as the alleged participants in the conduct.

The new law further requires that school harassment procedures ensure that, in the absence of special circumstances, investigations are initiated within one school day of the filing of a harassment allegation. The procedures must also provide that the initial determination by school officials as to whether harassment has occurred will be completed within five days of the receipt of the complaint. Finally, any internal review must be completed within 30 days of a request to review the initial administrative conclusion as to whether harassment has, in fact, occurred. Again, these time limitations will not apply when “special circumstances are present and documented by school officials.” Internal review is not defined in the law, but would include appeals to administrators and/or school boards.

When harassment is found to have occurred, schools must “take prompt and appropriate remedial action reasonably calculated to stop the harassment.” Whether remedial action is sufficiently “prompt” or “appropriate” will, in the end analysis, be viewed through a subjective lens. The question will be whether there has been an “unreasonable delay” under the circumstances, and whether an objective reasonable person would expect that the action taken would be likely to end the harassment.

Of considerable importance to school districts is the inclusion of an exhaustion of remedies provision in Act 91. A complainant must use the procedures available through the school before bringing a civil action against a school district under the state Public Accommodations Act. Exceptions to the exhaustion requirement are allowed when a school does not have a harassment policy or has not followed its policy. Exceptions are also allowed when the health or safety of a complainant would be jeopardized if he or she did not have access to a remedy through the Public Accommodations Act or when the complainant can show that following administrative procedures would be futile. These exceptions are generally applied in other areas of the law to exhaustion of remedies claims.

Act 91 encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation throughout the processing of a harassment complaint.

One further provision of Act 91 was of particular importance to our associations when H.113 was being debated in the State House. The harassment law now includes an independent review system whereby an impartial party could be retained during, or at the end of, the school’s administrative process to advise the school and the complainant as to the adequacy of the school’s investigation and response. It is hoped that this provision will offer a way for schools to demonstrate to complainants that their harassment procedures have been thorough and intended to produce an appropriate result. This provision should help students and parents of students to objectively determine whether the school’s response to their harassment allegations has been in accord with generally accepted standards.

Implications of Act 91 for school boards and administrators

1) Revise the school’s policy on harassment to include the new definition of harassment provided by Act 91.

2) Update administrative procedures to ensure that the investigation requirements of Act 91, including the timelines contained in the law, are met.

3) Review school publications, particularly student and staff handbooks, and update where necessary to make them consistent with the new law.

4) Provide training for students, parents and staff as needed.

Web link:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2004/acts/ACT091.HTM

Bullying Prevention: Act 117; H.629

H.629, also dealing with how people relate to each other in schools, was passed and signed into law as Act 117. This Act creates a definition of bullying to be added to Section 11(a) of Title 16. The bullying definition, similar to a statutory definition in Connecticut, states: “Bullying means any overt act or combination of acts directed against a student by another student or group of students and which:

1. is repeated over time;
2. is intended to ridicule, humiliate, or intimidate the student; and
3. occurs during the school day on school property, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored activity, or before or after the school day on a school bus or at a school-sponsored activity.”

Act 117 will require that school discipline plans, previously mandated by Act 113 of 2000, include a description of bullying as well as a description of misconduct that “although serious, does not rise to the level of…bullying.”

The Department of Education must, by January 1, 2005, update its Act 113 model discipline plan to include provisions related to bullying. The new model must include the following elements, which in turn must be added to school discipline plans:

· a statement that bullying is a “…form of dangerous and disrespectful behavior that will not be permitted or tolerated;”

· a process for students to report acts of bullying anonymously;

· a process for parents to file written reports of suspected bullying;

· a requirement that teachers and staff who witness acts of bullying, or who receive reports of alleged bullying, notify school administrators accordingly;

· a requirement that administrators investigate written allegations of bullying and investigate anonymous reports of bullying;

· an intervention strategy for school staff to deal with bullying;

· include the prohibition against bullying in student handbooks “or otherwise make students aware of the prohibition…penalties and procedures for investigating bullying;

· a requirement that school officials notify parents of students who commit acts of bullying of the current and future consequences of the act;

· a way to notify, consistent with the provisions of FERPA, the parents of a victim of bullying of actions taken to prevent further bullying; and

· a data collection process to enable schools to make available the number of reports and verified incidents of bullying to the Commissioner of Education and to the public.

Implications for school boards and administrators

1) Revise comprehensive discipline plans to include descriptions of bullying as well as descriptions of misconduct that although serious, do not rise to the level of harassment.

2) Revise school publications (handbooks, etc.) to include the following information about the new law:

· the definition of bullying and a description of other misconduct that is “…serious, but does not rise to the level of harassment;”

· the process people in the school should use to address issues of bullying and related misconduct; and

· a description of how the school will respond.

Web link for Act 117 - Bullying Prevention:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2004/acts/ACT117.HTM

Appropriations: Act 122; H.768

The Appropriations Bill, or so-called “Big Bill,” annually provides the vehicle for appropriating funds to support government as well as a mechanism to enact policy changes.

For public education, this year was no different, as the bill as enacted includes both funding to support public education and an array of underlying policy changes.

For example, Section 183a of the bill responds to concerns about school-based Medicaid. In response to the transition to a premium-based Medicaid program enacted last year that may affect the reimbursement of school district expenditures to school districts, the bill requires that the Department of Education and the Agency of Human services “…analyze the funding risks to the school-based Medicaid program.” The analysis must include the “impact of and responses to potential problems in the transition to the premium-based Medicaid system.”

Section 183a also requires a review of the funding risks to the school-based program that derive from the Medicaid program at the federal level. Specifically, changes at the federal level seem to be heading downward in an era of more restrictions on Medicaid eligibility.

The school-based Medicaid report is due for submission to the Joint Fiscal Committee of the Legislature no later than November of this year.

On another education policy matter, the Big Bill includes a provision to provide funding support to school districts joining together to form a joint contract, union, unified union or interstate school district beginning operation after the 2003-2004 school year.

Under Section 168a - the Commissioner of Education is directed to award school districts combining under the aforementioned new governance structures facilitation grants equal to the lesser of “five percent of the districts’ base education payment amounts in 16 V.S.A. § 4001(13) based on October 1 enrollment for that year or $150,000.”

Funds for this support will come from the Education Fund and will be provided in addition to funds paid to school districts through the base education payment. The bill states that payments to eligible districts under Section 168a will be paid in three equal payments consistent with 16 V.S.A. § 4028. However, we are told by the Department of Education that because the bill relies on October 1 enrollment data, in actuality payments will be paid on December 10 and April 30.

Eligibility for these school district consolidation facilitation grants sunsets on June 30, 2008.

The Appropriations bill also lays out provisions intended to provide funding for education services through the Adult Education and Literacy services provided to “clients” of the services ages 16 to 20 years old.

This was one of the more hotly debated education policy discussions this year. In the end, budget negotiators agreed to allocate $499,999 from the education fund to support Adult Education and Literacy Services. At the center of the discussion was a presumption on the part of some Legislators that school districts should be required to directly fund adult education and literacy services for students who leave school before graduation.

During deliberations on this topic, the Senate - by a vote of 14 in favor - 15 opposed - rejected a proposal by Senators Shepard of Bennington County and Mayo of Caledonia County to assess any school district $10 per day beginning on the day a student leaves as a drop out. Despite the rejection of the proposal, some legislators persisted in their belief that schools are causally responsible for students who leave school, and should therefore fund at least a portion of the services provided to those students through the AEL program.

Sections 173, 174 and 175 of the Big Bill lay out several policy directives to address this issue.

Section 173 provides the $499,999 Education Fund appropriation for AEL. This is a compromise amount - as the House proposal was to provide $235,520 (equivalent to 5% of the base education payment per student rising to 20% over 4 years) while the Senate wanted close to $1 million and 20% starting this year.

Section 174 amends 16 V.S.A., § 4011(f)(2) so that payments equal to 20 percent of the base education payment for “clients” 16 to 20 years of age gaining at least one skill level will be based on “information submitted to the commissioner on or before September 15 of the year of the calculation. For each client… information will include the name, address and dates of attendance at all Vermont public secondary schools attended and whether the client has gained a skill level.” This effort at information collection presumably is intended to develop more information associated with the causes and effects of students leaving school before graduating.

Under Section 174, the Commissioner of Education is required to report on whether the adult education and literacy program has submitted the information required under Section 174. If the information has not been provided the funding provision will be automatically repealed.

Section 175 requires the Commissioner of Education to report to the General Assembly prior to January 15, 2005 on:

· techniques for using education funds allocated to a school district based on the counting of an enrolled pupil, pursuant to 16 V.S.A. § 4001(1), to pay for all of part of the funds which, pursuant to 16 V.S.A. § 4011(f)(2), are due to a department or agency providing adult education and literacy services for that pupil (this means that the Commissioner is asked to determine how to have school districts pay for adult education and literacy services for students who leave school before graduation); and

· strategies to encourage school districts and adult education and literacy providers to work together to keep students enrolled in school until graduation.

Two important policy concerns surround these provisions of law.

First, should the Education Fund be utilized to pay for adult education and literacy services provided to school-aged persons not in school? The General Assembly has, through enactment of this year’s Big Bill, responded in the affirmative to this question.

Second, at what level are school districts responsible for providing funding support to services for students who leave school before graduation and subsequently rely upon another agency for education services? This question was not resolved. It will likely be discussed again next year.

Section 286 of the Appropriations Bill amends a provision originally included in Act 68 of 2003 to support collaboration in negotiating teacher contracts. Section 47 of Act 68 provided for grants of up to $5000 to supervisory unions pursuing strategies for districts within the supervisory union cooperate in teacher negotiations. This year the General Assembly expanded grant eligibility to include two or more supervisory unions working to pursue regional negotiations.

Under Section 286, the Commissioner of Education is now authorized to award “one grant of up to $5000 to a supervisory union board which applies for a grant to work with its member districts and grants of up to $5000 to each supervisory union or supervisory district seeking to work toward a regional bargaining initiative.”

Section 297d of the appropriations act brings holders of provisional teaching licenses within the definition of “teacher” for purposes of membership in the teachers’ retirement system. Holders of emergency licenses are not included within this definition, and are therefore not participants in the state teacher retirement system.

Also within the FY2005 Appropriations Bill is a provision calling for greater involvement of public schools in promoting agriculture in Vermont.

Section 164 of the bill creates a “youth in agriculture, natural resources, and food production consortium” to oversee the development and coordination of programs in agriculture, natural resources, food production and education to “…connect youths’ experiences in those areas to their in-school learning.” The consortium is charged with coordinating programs based on common standards, establish business and education partnerships and “oversee(ing) funds made available for the express purpose of implementing these pathways.”

The consortium, comprising employees from the Departments of Education and , Employment and Training as well as the Agencies of Agriculture and Natural Resources, business representatives and others, is directed to review and coordinate programs that involve “agriculture and the environment; programs within the elementary and middle school system which provide hands-on learning, such as ‘Ag in the Classroom’ sponsored by the agency of agriculture, food and markets, and ‘Forest, Fields, and Futures’ sponsored by UVM Extension Service; and secondary school programs in agriculture and natural resources‑related areas in education; ‘Smokeyhouse’ and other technical education, agriculture, and natural resources programs offered by high schools and technical centers.”

By January 15, 2005, the consortium is directed to issue a report on “…its progress, outcomes, and recommendations for expansion, development, and coordination of programs and pathways to careers in agriculture, natural resources, and food production in the state.”

Web link:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2004/acts/ACT122.HTM

Capital Construction Bill: Act 121; H. 767

The FY2005 Capital Construction Bill includes some good news and some not-so-good news for Vermont school districts.

On the plus side, new provisions enacted through Act 121 will provide a higher percentage of state-funded financial support for specific elements of school construction projects that make use of renewable energy sources. Specifically, state aid for the “…incremental costs (of a school construction project) associated with the installation of a space heating, water heating, cooling or refrigeration system that uses biomass, a geothermal/ground source, wind, or solar energy as the primary heating of cooling source shall be 90 percent of the approved cost of the incremental costs of the project, or 40 percent of the approved cost of a fuel system that would reduce fuel use by 10 percent or more.” (Act 121 – Section 59 amending Title 16 V.S.A. 3448 (a)(7)(B))

For more information on the potential use of renewable resources in a heating/cooling plant retrofit and/or use in new construction, contact Jonathan Sturges at the Vermont Superintendents Association School Management Energy Program. (802 229-1017)

In another positive development for local school districts, the General Assembly has provided specific authorization for school districts to use performance contracting as a method to undertake and fund capital improvements intended to address energy and operating efficiency in school buildings. Approved projects carried out utilizing the performance contracting method will be eligible for 20% state aid.

Under Section 58 of Act 121, a “Performance Contract” is “a contract for the valuation, recommendation, and implementation of one or more cost-savings measures for the purpose of realizing energy and operational cost savings where payment by the district is contingent on energy or operational cost-saving results.”

Under the newly enacted provisions, a school district is authorized to enter into a performance contract for a period not to exceed 20 years provided that cost-savings measures implemented under the contract “…comply with all state and local building codes.”

Section 58 adds new language to Title 16 V.S.A. 3448f spelling out specific requirements that must be met when utilizing performance contracting. Specific provisions in the bill address requirements for requesting proposals for performance contracting; exercising due diligence in determining the scope of, and need for, the project; requirements for seeking voter approval if the term of the contract exceeds ten years; and for specificity as to payment schedules and methods within the contract.

Also addressed by Section 58 are the conditions that must be met by the school district in order to be eligible for state aid under the performance contract. To show eligibility for state aid, the district must submit a written application to the Commissioner of Education that:

• specifies the need for and purpose of the project;
• provides details concerning the qualifications of the person or entity with whom the district intends to execute the performance contract;
• provides detailed information about the energy and operational cost-savings projected to result from the work resulting from the contract;
• provides a detailed payment schedule; and
• satisfies other information requirements required by the Commissioner.

The Commissioner of Education may approve a project application after consultation with the Department of Buildings and General Services and other expert resources such as Efficiency Vermont and VSA’s School Energy Management Program.

Once approved, the project will be assigned points by the State Board of Education based on criteria established by board rule. Ranking of the projects will determine the priority of approved projects.

Legislators and state officials anticipate a gradual start to the utilization of performance contracting by school districts and therefore no funds were allocated for project support in FY2005.

If you desire more information about performance contracting and eligibility for state aid contact Jonathan Sturges at the VSA School Energy Management Project.

With respect to the not-so-good, the General Assembly cut the Department of Education’s request for direct funding support for prioritized school construction projects from $7.8 million to $4 million.

As a result, school construction aid for five school construction projects will be deferred at least until FY2006. Projects at Champlain Valley Union High School, the Dresden School District, Cavendish Town Elementary School, Bradford Elementary School and Bellows Free Academy, St. Albans will all be affected. These projects will eventually receive state funding support - however if they proceed on schedule and sponsoring districts are forced to borrow extra funds to finance the projects while they await state aid, the costs of borrowing those funds are not an eligible cost for reimbursement.

In separate appropriations within the Capital Construction Bill:

• $750,000 was appropriated to the Department of Buildings and General Services for the Brattleboro Union High School District to fund the Southeastern Vermont Career Education Center;
• $375,000 was appropriated to the Department of Buildings and General Services for renovations to Holton Hall at the Austine School in Brattleboro; and
• $400,000 was appropriated to the Department of Education for regional technical education centers and comprehensive high schools to assist with the purchase of educational program equipment.

On the policy side, Act 121 includes the following provisions.

• A narrowing of eligibility for school construction aid for consolidation projects. Section 49 of Act 68 made construction to consolidate grades, classes, supervisory or other functions in school buildings and facilities within a school potentially eligible for 50% school construction aid. Act 121 limits this aid to projects that “consolidate school buildings within a school district” or projects that are initiated “as an integral part of the formation of a joint contract or union district designed to serve the educational needs of the participating district in a more cost effective manner…” This change was enacted at the recommendation of the Department of Education, and was intended to more practically reflect the intent of the original legislation, which was to support consolidation at a level that would lead to substantive reductions in operational and administrative costs.

• A modification of language in last year’s capital bill pertaining to the Patricia A. Hannaford Career Center in Middlebury appropriates funds for planning and preparation of construction documents for a power mechanics program at the Center as the first phase of an agricultural workforce development center. The Commissioner of Buildings and General Services is authorized to use a portion of the funds to procure land at the Middlebury Industrial Park in support of the project.

• A requirement that the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services, in consultation with the Commissioners of Labor and Industry and Education submit a report to the General Assembly recommending actions “by which the state can encourage or require the incorporation of high performance design techniques and features into planning for state buildings and school facilities.”

Web link:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2004/acts/ACT121.HTM

LEA Accountability: Act 114; S.308

This is the bill that makes school districts, rather than supervisory unions, LEAs for accountability purposes under the No Child Left Behind Act, was given final approval by the House on April 30^th, and was signed by the Governor on May 12^th.

S.308 (now Act 114) describes the NCLBA roles of supervisory unions and school districts this way:

“For purposes of distribution of funds…a supervisory union or supervisory district shall be a local education agency as that term is defined in (NCLBA);

For purposes of determining pupil performance and application of consequences for failure to meet standards and for provision of compensatory and remedial services pursuant to (NCLBA) a school district shall be a local education agency.”

The new law will be found in the section of Title 16 that describes most of the responsibilities of school boards. Section 563 of Title 16 will now include a subsection stipulating that a school board of a school district (as apposed to an S.U.) “…shall carry out the duties of a local education agency…for purposes of determining pupil performance and application of consequences for failure to meet standards and for provision of compensatory and remedial services pursuant to (NCLBA).”

Web link:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2004/acts/ACT114.HTM

Union District Assessments: S.315; Act 130

This bill alters the way union districts assess member districts. It received final approval on May 19^th and was signed by Governor Douglas five days later.

S.315, now Act 130, was described in previous Updates as having two key components. The Department of Education’s explanation of those components follows.

“The first component will include union school districts in the definition of a school district found in Chapter 133 of Title 16. The result will be that all state funding generated by union school districts will be paid to them. For example, special education aid and transportation aid derived from union school district expenses will be paid to the union school district instead of the member towns as is currently required by law.

The second component creates a method for determining the union school tax rate that will then be apportioned to each of its member towns. Union school assessments are generally, although not always, based on the proportion of union school students from each of the member towns. This bill will require that union school assessments be based on the number of equalized pupils from member towns that attend union schools.

Under Act 68, the education spending grant, which on average covers about 80% of a budget, is distributed according the number of equalized pupils in a town school district. When expenses and revenues in union school districts are not aligned, some member towns are adversely affected while others unjustifiably benefit. Union district assessment based on equalized students ensures that funding and expenses are allocated to member districts on the same basis, thereby eliminating the potential for inequity.”

This system will be given a “dry run” in FY 2006, with the Commissioner of Education responsible for gathering data and calculating tax rates as though the law was in effect. The Commissioner will make recommendations on the application of Act 68’s excess spending provisions to municipalities with combined municipal and union school tax rates. The law will take full effect in FY 2007.

Web link:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2004/acts/ACT114.HTM

Nutrition and Wellness: Act 161; H.272

On May 19^th, a conference committee came to agreement on the nutrition bill, H.272. The bill was signed by the governor on June 10^th, and will be enrolled as Act 161. The bill as originally introduced in January included requirements as to the amount of physical education or activity students must undertake and the types of food that should be served in schools. The original bill was amended to encourage improvement in these areas, but not require specific action on the part of schools. The stated purpose of the bill is to “…encourage wellness programs in Vermont public schools and Vermont communities. Wellness programs will be designed to encourage life-long patterns of healthy eating and regular physical exercise among Vermont citizens.”

Here are the major components of this legislation.

1) Definitions of physical activity program; physical education program; fitness program; nutrition; and wellness program.

2) The Commissioner and the Department of Education will:

§ form an advisory council on comprehensive wellness that will include at least three members associated with the health services field. The council is to “…assist the department of education in planning, coordinating, and encouraging wellness programs in the public schools.”

§ collaborate with other agencies and councils working on childhood wellness to

- “supervise the preparation of appropriate nutrition and fitness curricula for use in public schools, promote programs for the preparation of teachers to teach these curricula, and assist in the development of wellness programs;”

- “prepare and continually update a list of school and community programs which have the potential to improve childhood wellness;”

- “establish and maintain a website which displays data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey in a way that enables the public to aggregate and disaggregate the information;”

- “research funding opportunities for schools and communities that wish to build wellness programs and make the information available to the public;” and

- “create a process for schools to share with the department of health any data collected about the height and weight of students in kindergarten through grade six.” The data may be reported on a countywide basis as long as it protects the privacy of individual students and the identity of participating schools.

• offer assistance to school districts or supervisory unions for teacher training in wellness programs.
• allow school districts or supervisory unions to establish wellness community advisory boards to “…inventory community programs and assets and to assist the school board and community in developing and implementing wellness programs.” The boards must provide public notice to allow all interested parties to apply to be considered for the boards.

3) The Commissioner of Education is also required to collaborate with the Secretary of Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture, Foods and Markets to write a model school fitness and nutrition policy that will be available to school districts on or before January 1, 2005. The policy must include:

§ definitions of nutritious foods and guidelines, and to “the extent financially feasible,” policies about purchasing locally grown food for use in food service programs, vending machines, and other places where food is served or sold in schools;

§ a model physical education curriculum. It shall include “an annual report to parents which describes their child’s performance on fitness and other wellness indicators;”

§ model physical activity policies, which include, in addition to regular physical education classes, “minimum daily physical activity for each student provided through programs such as recess and other recreation periods, and participation in athletics either during or after regular school hours;”

§ “a process for implementing and enforcing nutrition and physical fitness policies;”

§ “a process for reporting to the community on the health status of students.”

4) The new law requires the Commissioner of Education to “…develop and implement a wellness grant program” which will help school communities establish wellness programs.