Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Wellbeing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears district pupil‑services presentation on tiered student well‑being supports
Summary
District pupil‑services staff presented a tiered well‑being program (universal lessons, small‑group supports, intensified interventions), shared survey results showing growth on multiple measures and described NextPath data use; board members asked about survey opt‑out, identification and costs for tier‑3 supports.
District pupil‑services staff presented the Hartford J1 School District board with an overview of the district’s tiered approach to student well‑being at the May 27 meeting, saying the program is designed to support school safety, classroom climate and students’ readiness to learn.
“Our downstairs brain includes things such as well‑being instruction, which helps students access their upstairs brain,” said Sarah Wolf, who introduced the pupil‑services presentation. The team described tier 1 as universal classroom instruction (character education and assemblies), tier 2 as targeted small‑group work and tier 3 as the most intensified, individualized support.
Administrators and school counselors told the board the district added a student well‑being survey this year and is using the NextPath platform to drive interventions. The presenters reported district gains from fall to spring: “we had an 11% increase in students that are on target for all of our designated skill areas,” a staff member said, and individual schools reported increases in specific measures such as conflict‑resolution and respectful behavior.
Presenters explained how students are identified for interventions. The survey is administered in classrooms through NextPath; parents may opt out at the start of the year. Staff also use teacher referrals and a strengths‑and‑needs screener to place pupils into tier 2 or tier 3 supports. A pupil‑services staff member described a free‑text box on the survey that lets students identify their own needs or peers who may require help.
Board members pressed for details on tier 3 staffing and costs. One board member asked whether the extra one‑on‑one time represents additional pay to staff; administrators said the district’s policy prohibits staff from creating supplemental income through district roles and that intensified supports are provided during regular school hours by district staff where possible. District administration also noted there will be a separate budget request related to expanding tier‑3 materials later in the agenda.
The presentation included examples from Central, Lincoln and Rossman schools: staff described student leadership initiatives (Wildcat welcome squad), peer mediation programs (about 60 peer mediations at one building), and data‑driven small groups. Rossman and Lincoln presenters said their buildings saw increases in the share of students ‘not at risk’ and modest gains in average daily attendance.
The board did not take formal action on the presentation itself; members asked administration to provide additional implementation details, including a clearer scope and cost estimate for tier 3 materials requested later in the meeting.
