Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Student Medication topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee updates student medication policy to reflect Connecticut’s Public Act 25-143

Wallingford Public Schools Instructional Committee · March 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee reviewed revisions to policy 5141.21 to align with Public Act 25-143 and Connecticut General Statutes Section 10-212a/10-212a-2, broadening authorized medication delivery mechanisms (for example, nasal spray) and confirming that qualified employees may administer epinephrine or glucagon under specified conditions.

The Wallingford Public Schools Instructional Committee on March 16 reviewed proposed revisions to student medication policy 5141.21 intended to align district practice with recent state law changes. Mrs. Latorre, Committee member, said the revision by Shipman and Goodwin reflects Public Act 25-143 and Connecticut General Statutes Section 10-212a and 10-212a-2 and expands the authorized delivery mechanisms the district may use to provide emergency medications to students.

According to the presentation, the statutory language permits qualified employees of boards of education, under certain circumstances, to administer epinephrine or glucagon to students. The update clarifies that boards may authorize a broader range of medical equipment—citing, as an example, nasal spray delivery rather than limiting options to injection-based mechanisms. Mrs. Latorre said both Mrs. Turner and Dr. Arlington reviewed the policy.

Committee member Mrs. Passarelli thanked staff for adding “opioid antagonist” to the policy’s definitions and requested a formatting edit (underlining “paraeducator” in the definitions) for clarity. No formal vote or motion on policy adoption was recorded during the meeting; the committee reviewed the change and asked no additional substantive questions at that time.