Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and advocates tell Hartford board proposed family‑engagement policy lacked meaningful outreach
Summary
At a July 21 Hartford Board of Education meeting, parents and community members criticized the district’s first reading of a draft parent/community engagement policy, saying outreach was limited (one English‑only email to PTO presidents), redlines and prior regulations were not provided, and required capacity building under ESSA was not met.
Chair Shontay Bridal opened the July 21 meeting and placed draft policy 1110.1 (parent/caregiver/family and community engagement) on the agenda for a first reading; no vote was required for a first reading.
Several parents and community representatives used the public‑comment period to press the board for broader, clearer outreach before the policy advances. Liping Wong told the board the district had presented the wrong regulations and that the material should have carried over the earlier regulation (12.05). She said the district’s reported outreach — an invitation list of 39 PTO presidents — overstated meaningful engagement because the outreach consisted of “only one English language email,” some PTO presidents speak only Spanish, and some named PTO presidents were not active. “Sending one English language email without prior training, explanation, translation, or follow‑up is not capacity building,” Wong said.
Parent leader Samuel Silva and commenter Millie Arseniyegas echoed those concerns. Silva said parents are “partners” and should be treated as core decision‑making participants rather than occasional guests, and Arseniyegas said families should be able to see redlined changes so they can compare the prior and proposed rules. “If you’re going through this process, at the very least start where you need to start so families can see the changes,” Arseniyegas told the board.
The speakers cited federal and district expectations. Wong referenced the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESSA) requirement for districts to build parents’ capacity to participate meaningfully; she asked whether the district had carried out capacity‑building activities or Title I family conferences before asking parents to review the policy.
Board staff and the chair pointed members of the public to existing resources and next steps. Chair Bridal noted the policy committee’s recording and asked the public to review the committee discussion and the superintendent’s posted materials; she also said Alejandro Martinez, the family engagement and outreach manager, had followed engagement procedures and that staff would follow up on requests. Board member Steve Tatum (identified in the meeting record) encouraged commenters to attend the policy committee meeting and the family and community engagement committee meeting where the policy will be discussed further.
The meeting treated the draft as a starting point: the first reading does not require a vote and gives the board and the public more opportunity to review redlines and ask questions. Board members said the document will be revisited in committee and that further public engagement is expected before any final action.
What happens next: the policy will return to policy committee and to the family and community engagement committee for additional review; the board encouraged community members to watch posted recordings and to contact the board liaison (Christina Santiago) with questions.
