Yeah. Thank you for the welcome, Matt. And thank you, everyone, for attending. We are going to be looking at an end user threat model for Envoy Gateway. My name is Tuan Vannenburg, Cloud Native Security Engineer at Control Plane. And this is my esteemed colleague, James Callahan, also from Control Plane. So a little bit about us before we get started. Control Plane is a cloud native security consultancy that specializes in cloud Kubernetes and containers. Our clients include government actors, as well as financial services and highly regulated industries. We have just over 50 people across the UK, Northern Europe, and Australasia, and expanding. And to get us started here, we're going to go over a little bit of an overview of what we're going to do, what this work is, as well as what our current state is. So what is our scope here? We are commissioned by the Linux Foundation to do this piece of work. But we like to say that it is not a security review or an audit of the project itself. It is a threat model based on end user implementation and security considerations revolving around the actual use case of Envoy Gateway itself. And a huge thank you to ARCO and the team at TouchRate with Matt and Zach, as well for their ongoing collaboration and feedback throughout this process. So through our presentation, we'll give a quick introduction to what threat modeling is, why it's important, and why it's helpful. And then we're going to go through three specific demos, attempting to show realization of some of the attacks that we've enumerated in our attack trees. And some next steps forward from this presentation. We look to finalize a threat model report and specifically update and refresh based on the recent 0.6 release a few days ago. So what is threat modeling? Threat modeling is an interactive exercise that tries to bring everyone to the table, not just security folks, at identifying and enumerating threats and vulnerabilities. It looks at devising mitigations and security controls to reduce residual risks, as well as escalate the most important risks that you've found pertinent to your system. So you might ask, why threat model? And a lot of the value here is actually identifying security flaws and risks early in your system design process. So thereby saving time on consuming redesigns of your system that otherwise would have had to happen if you did not consider the security risk to begin with. And it helps you to focus and fine tune your security requirements to actualize risks that are mapped to attack trees and identify complex risks and data flows. Kind of like what I mentioned, everyone can and should threat model, not just security teams. So into the process that we follow, we follow a four-step iterative process that starts out first with what are we building? So here you need to actually define your scope, understand what your system is, your data, your adversaries, and your architecture to be able to actually begin the threat modeling process. Here you will build data flow diagrams, as well as system architecture diagrams to actually understand what it is you're working with and how you can begin to build a threat modeling exercise off of that. Moving into step two, we look to catastrophize your system. So what can go wrong? Typically, we'll use open source threat intelligence sources, as well as brainstorming and techniques like stride to enumerate threats, and then building attack trees to understand complex threat vectors based off of that and how the two map between themselves. In step three, you get actually some of the solutions here, right? So we will begin to build a risk management strategy based on your use case and your system architecture. We will devise controls to help mitigate your threats and then implement controls based on that risk management strategy that we had set out at the beginning. In fourth, and arguably one of the most important steps is that iterative process here. So did we actually do a good job in our threat modeling exercise? So here we will map controls to the attack trees that we have elucidated. And then in many cases, you'll build automated tests to test the control implementation and sometimes as well, offset and pen test exercises to further enforce what you have provided as far as attack trees and the controls that you use to break those attack chains. And it is highly encouraged to revisit your threat model regularly to keep it relevant. So to start us out and before we kind of dive into Envoy Gateway itself, we kind of need to understand what is Gateway API. And this will come into play later in the presentation as well as we actually begin to categorize some of our risks. But Gateway API, as some of you may know, is an open-source project maintained by SIG Network. It is intended to be expressive and the next generation and iteration of the Kubernetes Ingress API. So we have here a very high-level overview, an architecture diagram that you can find on the Gateway API docs. But at its base level, Gateway API is composed of three resources of Gateway classes, which act as a decoupling between the actual mechanism, or in our case, controller, and the Gateway implementation itself, and provide a class of Gateways almost a templatized configuration for your load balancing resources.  And the routes are what actually brings in routes your traffic through to your services and different namespaces on your clusters. It is intended to be a role-orientated API. And its security model is based on three primary personas. There is also a four-tier model that includes application admins that we'll kind of get into in the next slides. But at a high level, it's looking at your infrastructure provider, which will manage the highest level of resources and have the highest level of permissions with Gateway classes, Gateways, and routes, and then your cluster operator, which sometimes may configure and have access to work with your Gateway class. But in most cases, we'll be working with your Gateway resource and your routes. And at the lowest level, your app dev, which should primarily be concerned with the actual routes that provide service to the applications that they manage and develop. So now we kind of understand a little bit about what Gateway API is. So what are we building here? We will, in this thread modeling exercise, we build a demo deployment of Envoy Gateway with a few different deployment apologies that James will get into a little later. But at its base level, Envoy Gateway implements Gateway API, where Gateway classes are cluster scoped resources that are intended to be managed by the infrastructure provider itself. And each Envoy Gateway controller will accept a single Gateway class resource. Gateways are intended to be namesay scoped and they implement the Gateway class itself, as I kind of mentioned, as a templatized configuration. And routes are bound to a parent Gateway and then provide downstream traffic to the services and different application namespaces for developers. So Envoy Gateway operates on static and dynamic configuration. And the static configuration is used to configure Envoy Gateway at the startup and should be stored in a secure source control management repository. And Dynamic Config is used to reconcile the desired state and to provide dynamic updates of the state of the data plane via Kubernetes resources, typically through applying manifest or some sort of GitOps deployment. So some of the threat actors that are considered in the security model for Gateway API, this is the four tier security model that operates on a multi-tenant context. First, on the infrastructure provider who have access to your Gateway class, your Gateway, and your route. The cluster operators, as I mentioned a little bit before, sometimes have access to your Gateway class. But in most cases, we'll be working with your Gateway and route resources. For your application admins, they will not be working with your Gateway class. In specified namespaces that they are administered to manage, they will work with your Gateway itself and then the routes. And at the lowest level, at the application developers, they should only be working with and concerned with the actual routes that provide service to their applications. So I'm going to hand this over to James. Thank you very much, Chorrin. So as Chorrin has said, we are going to look at a multi-tenant deployment model. Because in threat modeling, we want to elucidate the most threats. So we want to make it more likely that something can go wrong. We can obviously do this more easily in a multi-tenant setting where we have a new threat actor, which is the co-tenant. So what we're going to do, and this is all spun up, this infrastructure is spun up. If you go to that repo that we mentioned at the start of the talk, threat modeling Envoy Gateway talk in the control plane organization, what we're going to do is spin this all up on a kind cluster and look at a few different deployment topologies for Envoy Gateway. We're not suggesting at this point that one is better than the other. We're going to find that out through threat modeling and catastrophizing, as Chorrin said first. So on the left-hand side here, we have a single tenant called Tenant A, very imaginative. I know. And Tenant A has their own dedicated gateway class. They have their own Envoy Gateway controller in a namespace which they own, Tenant A namespace. Again, our naming is just so imaginative. And this Envoy Gateway controller provisions a dedicated Envoy proxy for Tenant A. And they also create their roots in this namespace. And their back ends are also in this namespace. So a very, very simple single namespace model. We see there is traffic coming out of that Tenant A namespace to Tenant D namespace. We'll get to how that is actually done through resources later on. And this doesn't, Tenant D doesn't have to be a tenant in the strictest sense of the word. It could just be another namespace which Tenant A have some control over. But again, we want to look at the worst case scenario. So we'll consider the case where we have a root to another tenant. On the right-hand side, we have a shared gateway approach where we have a shared gateway class. Again, this is a cluster-scoped resource. We have a shared Envoy Gateway controller in a dedicated namespace provisioning an Envoy proxy for shared tenants in that dedicated shared namespace. We then have Tenants B and C sitting underneath and their traffic is all using this shared Envoy proxy. Let's have a look then at how we get these cross-namespace roots. So there's two ways. The first one is the shared model that we talked about before. So in this shared model, we need a gateway listener. This is the shared gateway listener, as you can see from the namespace. And this shared gateway has a listener which has a allowed root. And in the allowed root, we match on namespaces. So we say in Tenants B and Tenants C namespaces, we can create HTTP roots which bind to this gateway. So then we have an example on the right-hand side of such a root. We're looking at Tenants B here. And we can see we're just rooting TenantsB.example.com to a back-end run in Tenants B's namespace. So that's one model. The other model is using reference grants. In this case, this is related to the left-hand side of that diagram before. We have a Tenants A gateway in this case. We have a Tenants A root. But that root references a Tenants D back-end. And then Tenants D need to create a reference grant in their namespace in order for this to work. Otherwise, the traffic will not get rooted there. So what we're seeing is a model where in both cases, Envoy Gateway has this built-in. It's a handshake mechanism where to get cross-namespace traffic, you need some resource to be created in each namespace. So we have inbuilt protection against malicious cross-namespace roots built-in to Gateway API and, by extension, any implementation. However, that doesn't mean that we stop threat modeling here. We still want to understand what would an attacker have to do to create a malicious HTTP root and why would they want to do this in the first place? So let's consider a scenario where we have a malicious Tenants C. Remember, they were sitting underneath the shared gateway. If Tenants C were malicious, they could perhaps think of a scenario where they want to direct legitimate users of a Tenant B service to something that looks like a Tenant B service, but actually it's served up by Tenant C. If they can do this, they could maybe try and steal credentials, try and get someone to log into a cloned page, something like that. So let's look at what this would look like. First of all, we spin up the infra in the diagram and we set up port forwarding to our Tenant A gateway so that we can hit Tenant A resources on localhost 8888. And then we'll just curl our Tenant A example and it's just an Echo server and you can see at the bottom it's being served up from the Tenant A namespace. So let's do this again now for our shared gateway. We'll set up port forwarding so we can hit localhost 8889 and we'll just take the example of Tenant B. So we'll curl TenantB.example.com and again, we will see that it's served up as expected from Tenant B's namespace. However, what happens if Tenant C can create this malicious HTTP route? So we can see it's created in the Tenant C namespace but it's referring to TenantB.example.com slash totally legit. What happens if I can then socially engineer a Tenant B user to go to this URL? Let's look at this in action then. We are going to apply our malicious HTTP route and then we're gonna curl TenantB.example.com slash totally legit and you will see we have been foiled. It's served up by Tenant C. So this is one example of how social engineering could be coupled with a malicious cross namespace route and we can codify this as Torrin said before in an attack tree. So we're gonna do that now. Let's ignore the left hand side of this slide for now and just focus on this attack tree and let's just look at the top two lines. So we want to route traffic to a malicious endpoint. This is a blue node which in our code means it's an and. It needs all of the nodes below it to be realized for it to be realizable. So we need to be able to create the malicious HTTP route which we did in the previous step and also we need that social engineering element. Taking a break from the attack tree just for a moment to come back to the left. What we'll see is that there are different types of threats as we go on. We'll have some threats such as all of the ones in this tree which are completely generic to Gateway API. We'll also have some which are completely generic to container security because we're running on Kubernetes. There'll be some which will be Envoy Gateway implementation specific and this is where the importance of iterative threat modeling comes in because what we do is we want to have those conversations with ARCO and the maintainers. They iterate the product. So all of these demos are based on version 0.5 of Envoy Gateway so we need to update them and update the threat modeling report post 0.6 and what we'll see actually is that some Envoy Gateway specific things have actually improved in 0.6 which is massive credit to ARCO and the team. Back to the right hand side then and looking underneath the malicious HTTP route. We saw before there's two ways to do this and get this cross namespace route. The left hand side underneath the green node which is an or is the single tenant example where we have the reference grant created. We won't spend too much time on that because as you can see at the bottom you basically need because of this handshake mechanism you need a malicious developer, malicious admin or compromise credentials to do something bad here. The more interesting case is to the right where we have the shared gateway because now all we need is that the shared gateway supports a malicious namespace. Again we could have a malicious admin which isn't a very exciting attack. Another way we could do this though is instead of matching on namespaces as we had before we could match on a custom label such as M for something. And in this case any malicious actor who can successfully label namespaces could potentially add a namespace to that list of supported namespaces. So we've derived a control here and this is how threat modeling works. We do an attack tree, we derive a control and we try and cut off one of the branches. So here we just are very strict about configuring route bindings based on namespace name rather than any other custom label. The namespace name is always gonna be there and it's gonna be safe. So again this comes back to this handshake mechanism protecting us from these risks being realized. Let's look at a more nefarious attack here. So our attacker, if they really wanna compromise one of our shared tenants or the single tenant compromising an envoy proxy itself would be the end goal because we can tamper with traffic, we can sniff traffic, we can compromise the availability of traffic delivered to back ends. This is the ultimate goal. So let's just have a look, not a very exciting look, but just a very simple example of something we could do with a malicious envoy gateway, envoy proxy image deployed by gateway and we'll look at how this is done by modifying a gateway class and a custom envoy proxy resource. So first of all, let's just look at a really silly toy container. All we do is on top of envoy gateway base image we install TCP dump and a script which just listens for incoming HTTP connections. Not very exciting. So we'll build this first of all and then we will load it into our kind cluster so that we can use it in our manifests. And once we have done this, which will take a minute, we can then set up a new tenant if there weren't enough with A to D already, we're gonna install tenant E and give them their own envoy gateway controller and their own namespace. We're just doing this for example purposes to show how you can create a custom gateway class and a custom envoy proxy. Then we look at some of the infra we'll deploy for tenant E. So we will give them at the top their own gateway class and we're going to reference out to a custom envoy proxy config, which is at the bottom and this proxy config uses our custom malicious toy silly image. So let's do, let's apply this now and see what an attacker could see. We all know what the answer is gonna be. It's just all the incoming HTTP traffic, but let's show it. So we'll exec into the envoy proxy pod deployed for tenant E and run our TCP dump script. We'll see probably some random health check traffic and stuff and you've got to imagine me like furiously opening another window, trying to curl tenant E in the background. Eventually it'll come through but I was obviously quite slow at the time. And there it is, there is our echo response from tenant E's namespace. So obviously very silly example in a real life scenario, an attacker's much more likely to want to tamper with traffic or farm off traffic to an attacker control service without being noticed. But again, just a silly example to show that compromising the envoy proxy is a good end goal for an attacker. So how would we do this? It's back to the attack trees. So our second attack tree has this as our top node compromising an envoy proxy. It's a green or node because there's many ways to do this. We could maliciously craft an image. We could do this through a supply chain attack either in an envoy gateway or envoy proxy projects themselves or we could do a dependency confusion attack or typosquatting, something like that to trick someone into installing a malicious image. The risk that we, the one that we looked at before on the previous slide, this was the second node here. So gateway class references malicious image. We'll come back to that in the next slide because we're not done with this tree just yet. Remote code execution within the proxy is obviously a possibility if we have a suitable vulnerability and network access. Gaining a shell in a running proxy container is obviously possible if the attacker has Kubernetes API access and the container has a shell. And of course we're running on Kubernetes so we have generic pivoting risks as well if there's some weak Kubernetes configuration in play. We'll do the same thing again. So this one we'll leave to the next slide but we'll look at some example controls for these other ones. So supply chain attack, the envoy gateway project can help us here by doing things like aligning with salsa standards, signing images so that people can verify that they're running trusted images and production of Sbom and Vex can help with vulnerability triage processes. Vulnerability Envoy proxy images themselves. We of course don't have to use that customized Envoy proxy resource for evil. We can do it for good. So we can pin versions to minor patch releases again to help that triage process and to make sure that we're mitigating any identified vulnerabilities. Proxy containers having a shell. Obviously we can use distrilous base images worth saying. Again, the demo was based on version 0.5, 0.6 uses distrilous base images. Again, it's that iterative process of talking with developers, a change being made. Our end goal really here is to have all of the threats just either remediated by default or a very, very simple end user implementation. So the less threats that we get over time as the project evolves, the better. We're still going to capture those in the report. It's just the recommendation will change from being something like you have to do this very specific thing to, well, just run Envoy Gateway 0.6 or higher. And finally, weak Kubernetes security. We're all here for a reason. We know a bit about this. So validating admission control, app armor, set comp, limiting Linux capabilities, things like that. We can also consider maybe a hardened runtime for proxy and gateway pods. So something like GVisor, this could help with this pivoting risk. So back to our interesting example then, which is this one circled in yellow. So gateway class references malicious image. The example we saw on the previous demo wasn't very exciting because again, we just created the resources. It would be much more interesting to see what sorts of access would we have to have? What would have to be compromised in our cluster in order to tamper with those resources? So let's look at the example of a malicious gateway class being created. And for this example, we're going to imagine in our diagram from the start that tenant A has been compromised. And more specifically, their Envoy gateway controller has been compromised. What could they do? What could the attacker do if they've compromised the tenant A namespace and that gateway controller? So it's the third and last demo of the day. Let's have a look. Version 0.5 uses a cluster role for Envoy gateway. So let's see what that cluster role can do to Envoy proxies. Note we can't patch Envoy proxies. So that's going to just patching the proxy image used by the shared gateway, for example, to get a malicious gateway for the shared tenants. That's not going to work. However, let's look what we can do with gateway classes. And we will see that we can patch gateway classes. So let's see if we can create something like this. So we've got a malicious Envoy proxy. It's not a stretch to imagine. We've said tenant A has been compromised. Maybe we have a malicious custom proxy config in the tenant A namespace. Now, can we patch the gateway class to use the shared config? So what we really want to do is create this malicious gateway class from our compromised controller in tenant A, but we're actually patching the gateway class for tenant C or B or someone who uses the shared gateway. So what we'll do is we'll just apply our malicious Envoy proxy resource because we're saying tenant A has been compromised. That's in the tenant A namespace. And now we've got this little script in our repo which will perform an action, a cube control action, as the tenant A compromised Envoy gateway controller. So what we'll do is patch that gateway class resource, restart our pods in the shared namespace. And then what we'll do is just show that the pods have been restarted recently. And now let's grep out the image used by our shared Envoy proxy. And we can see that it is not our TCP dump image, so it hasn't worked. Again, this is a mitigation built into Gateway API which I'll come back to in just one second. But in 0.5, we still do have to, we've got a gateway class which that was very quick at the end. Apologies for that. Basically, you could enumerate secrets in different namespaces. So just having the gateway class which is permissive is something which was I think the right move to go to a different model in 0.6 which we'll see has been done later on. Just going back to that thing about the, why didn't that work? So we patched the gateway class. The reason this doesn't work is that in Gateway API, if you, the state of a gateway is bound to the state of the gateway class at startup time. And what this does is it just reduces blast radius. So again, we can't patch a gateway class and have it affect all of the running gateways underneath that gateway class. We would have to actually create new gateways and that would be complicated because you'd have to get trick people into using those gateways for their routes and stuff like that. So this massively reduces blast radius and is another example of Gateway API and any implementation which does it well such as Envoy Gateway helping us out here. So this helps our threat model massively. We brought up a threat here which was the cluster role and maintaining awareness of cluster roles is obviously key. Note, I realize we're almost out of time, aren't we? But we'll finish up quite quickly. Gateway classes will always be cluster scoped but like I said before, ARCA and the team really, really have been really engaging during this process and 0.6 does not require these cluster roles. So already we're getting built-in mitigations against some of our threats. Business context has to be added. Normally you would do this when you do a data dictionary. This depends on the data held by your client. It's a bit hard to do this and hence to prioritize threats in a very generic case where anyone could be using this project. So what we've done is a very generic, kind of like impact likelihood thing, just to prioritize threats. We've got some other examples that we can go through. I don't think there's much value going through specific examples right now because we'll push the report and you can read through these in detail. But things just like good PKI key management, there are really good docs on the Envoy Gateway documentation sites regarding use of cert manager and stuff like that. The threat at the bottom, misconfiguration of dynamic proxy, dynamic config, this is really what we've been talking about with those attack trees throughout the whole talk. And what we have to do is basically just adopt those RBAC models shown by Torrin at the start, either the three or four tier, whichever is more relevant to you, maybe consider a GitOps model for dynamic config and a secure baseline, instead of using like this shared model, maybe single gateway class per cluster, Envoy Gateway controller per tenant, tenants with similar data sensitivities, stuff like that, soft multi-tenancy assumptions, I think is a safe thing. And Matt is looking at his watch. So please check out Envoy Gateway 0.6, stay tuned for the threat model report which we'll push to the repo. Currently in draft, we're updating and once it gets pushed, we really, really would appreciate comments and feedback and collaboration. So thank you very much.


Hello and welcome to the session. Let us discuss the following question. It says integrate the following function The given function is x upon e to the power x square. Let's now move on to the solution and let i be the integral x upon e to the power x square dx Now we see that the derivative of x square is 2x which contains x So we put equal to x square So dT is equal to 2x and this implies x dx is equal to dt by 2. Now x dx is dt by 2 and x square is t. So Substituting all these values in the integral the integral becomes 1 upon e to the power t dt by 2 Which is again equal to 1 by 2 into integral of e to the power minus t dt Now The value of the integral is e to the power minus t upon minus 1 plus 3 So this is equal to minus 1 by 2 Into e to the power minus t plus c which is again equal to minus 1 by 2 Substituting the value of t it becomes e to the power minus x square Plus c which is again equal to Minus 1 by 2 into e to the power x square plus c Hence the integral of the given function is minus 1 by 2 into e to the power x square plus c and This completes this question and the session by for now. Take care. Have a good day


Good afternoon, everyone. It's Friday, April 30th, 151 p.m. This is Senate education. We are going to be returning to the floor at four. We certainly, I don't plan on having us here that long. There are really two, two areas of focus. We have the H106 continuing our work on. As well as as 16, I know that we also have H4 49 on our calendar. And that's something if senators are interested in, we will return to after we finish our immediate work that bill again is in government operations and we will. But we'll continue our walkthrough if Ms. Wasserman has some time after they she finishes her work there. Again, it's not in our possession and then each 101 I have scheduled a vote for but I think I'm going to punt that until next week just in case we need it for any other bills that might come back to us or anything else we want to add. So with that, let's focus H106 community schools bill, just to give everybody an update on H106. I had a meeting this morning with the pro 10, and others about this bill. I'm just wondering today from Ms. Finn and we have Deputy Secretary Boucher back with us. I think Senator Perkley also may have somebody that might come in next week, or at least he may touch base with constituent on this bill but we're looking at probably a Wednesday vote on this, given that we've been on the floor quite a bit we haven't really had the time to continue our work on it that's the plan. So we'll hear from again Ms Finn today, as well as Deputy Secretary continue to make edits, we do have Senator Pearson coming in on Tuesday on this bill. One of the reasons I met with the pro 10 Senators Pearson and star this morning was Senators may recall from yesterday's vote on s 100. In my floor comments, it. I mentioned how there was not yet agreement on creating markets, incentivizing schools to buy local foods, creating food markets, all that language that we had hoped would travel with s 100, and we had been told that it would travel with s 100. The Agriculture Committee, Senator Pearson in particular is really pushing for that language I certainly think I for one would like to see that language go through as well in talking with a little bit with the chair of some of the other groups and others seems like s one h 106 would be a good spot to put that, given also that we have in that bill now. A study on getting us to universal school meals so I asked Senator Pearson to come in on Tuesday introduced that idea to the committee take us through his thoughts let us know some of the other people that he's spoken to and we'll go from there. And then Jim h 101 I did mention that we're going to punt that until next week, because we may need it as a vehicle for other work. And so the one thing I'm going to ask you to do if you don't mind is, can you do a title change to that. Right now it is there the house's literacy bill. It has language in there, mostly around the State Board of Education, it's our diversity and it's also some of the agreements that we, Secretary French and John Carol have agreed to, can you change that name to for us, just make it a more of a state board. I did change the name already. Terrific terrific I did not see that on the agenda so I thought that maybe it was the same. So, very end of the of the amendment. Great. Okay, terrific so I appreciate that take a look. And do you want me to update 106 for Tuesday with that. I think, you know, I want to be respectful to the committee, of course, and the process so I want the committee to hear from Senator Pearson first and then we'll kind of see it where everybody falls. I, I for one am enthusiastic about getting that going I think I do agree with people that 106 might be a good spot but I'll leave that to the committee I don't think there's anything to update. I'm going to ask if you do. You do have time. If you wouldn't mind updating a little bit the. If it makes sense at all and I'll look at it this weekend. Is there any language that we should put in 106 that again ties food ties nutrition ties, get into universal school meals, connects it at all to the underlying 106 bill. I don't know the answer to that question, but if you could just take a look at it. There's anything there. Questions at this point comments. Okay. Miss Finn. Thank you for being with us thank you for your patience. I just heard that. And as you and I have spoken we are in the final lap, or close to it of the session. You did send us a lot of suggested changes. I think perhaps the best way to do this is for us to take about 15 or 20 minutes and have you take us through some of these changes, and, and maybe even prioritize them in a way. It may be that the committee is comfortable with all of them but let's start with a little bit of a walkthrough if you would. Can you can everybody see the rec the recommendations, they were emailed to us. So if I'm looking at I'm looking at them, I can just point out where we are where where I am in them. We have a date April 22 2021. Yes. And we made adjustments based on the, we hope the most recent draft 3.1. I have it right here 3.1. Yes. Okay, wonderful. And things in yellow and red. Yeah, okay. Okay. And can I give just a little bit of background into that. Okay, thank you. We, we. So, for the record, my name is Carl and Finn I'm the policy a senior policy associate with voices for months children. I'm here on behalf and I think Deborah, Lisa Baker testified to this on Wednesday on behalf of the one education equity project, the members who have all contributed to these suggestions, and we thank you for the opportunity to, to, you know, share these with you. We see the community schools approach as a, as really an umbrella. That makes connections across disparate implementation efforts of education policies, and as a model for transformative change in our schools and so you know, we think about these existing state policies and some, some bills and I know one of the bills is you're going to be looking at come back from the house as 16 but we have these great state policies such as act 77. Act 24, which is, is an old law, but I think it's still relevant it's about supporting coordination of services between education, public education human services and of course act one focused on educational equity and social justice, and with local and regional equity work. So this community school framework can really be a catalyst for building partnerships to address significant needs and challenges, which the bill really digs into, and be steeped in equity and a commitment to change how necessary to address deeply rooted inequities and so there's the, there are four themes that we just wanted to point out because when we go through it so it's such a, you know, specific language but what we're trying to address are education equity and really finding a way through language to, to, to make sure that equity is is front and center in this legislation and Senator Campion I think you might, I was copied on an email to you from John Castle, one of the members who participated in this is a superintendent from North Country Supervisory Union and he talks about the importance of this as a framework or an approach to community schools and not a program. And his, the way that he frames it is, is really that the committee define community schools as as a framework so that it can remain a dynamic and organic process and avoid that kind of that checklist that program checklist did we do this, this and this. The third theme is the focus on community schools as a responsive strategy, kind of similar to that but it's building on resources, assets, as well as addressing some of the significant needs and concerns that we have and so it's kind of wanted to the language that we've offered to steeped in that, and then we're offering an additional pillar. That is, would incorporate actually pieces of what you have put into the legislation it would incorporate things like PBI PBIS and forgive me I can never remember what that stands for, but you know, in the restorative practices and there's a lot of approaches, and it also would include curriculum and the work of, you know, the work of the focus of Act one and really seeing inclusive and safe environments for for students so that's, that's the big framework, and now I can go through and kind of bring back to the to that framework, these different additions that are recommendations okay. So, on page one section to the findings section. We, you know, the reason that we, we spent time on the findings is that it seems, I think we feel that it should be really expressing the intent of the bill and have really guide the purposes and actions. So that is why we, we spent time on the language around the in the findings, excuse me so the first that you know the finding is is that we're suggesting starting with so adding every child should be provided an equitable education. And fortunately, we have a definition of that from the agency of education. And you know there are there are the AOE and others have done some real, really important work on defining and thinking about what what that means education equity, or equitable education and here it's as defined as access to the resources opportunities and educational rigor, they need. This is for students of you at the right moment in their education, whatever their race, gender identity sexual or so you can see that this meeting with us is important. If this bill can reflect it should reflect that it's it's going to focus on education equity or an equitable education. So if let's pause on this, you may so at the right moment. So this is more aspirational. Correct. I mean I just don't want people provide an equitable education is to do. At the right moment in their education. It just I worried and actually we have deputy secretary who say here, if we might have a conversation about these because we were hoping you would weigh in in general would you mind commenting on that. So certainly, Mr chair for the record Heather Boucher deputy secretary for education. It's not it's whether it's aspirational or not it is the definition of educational equity, Miss Finn is completely correct so this is the definition that the state agency uses when making decisions pertaining to programs that that we support, and it's certainly the definition that we hold districts and schools too. So we appreciate the coherence actually. So you're so you're good with us adding that yes we appreciate the improvement in terms of coherence. Very helpful center person. I just wondered about the bolded language is that part of the definition or was that added because this is adapted from the whole. My understanding is and I don't have a right in front of me but I've seen, I've reviewed the written testimony that miss Finn put forth is my understanding is the entire bolded section is the agency of education language, and miss Finn can correct me if I'm wrong but I think it is. So yes, that is the definition that we use. So only the delineations of the children are like race gender all those are the are bolded so I just wondered if that was added because if we delineate all the different groups, when we say every child and then we say, here are all the delineations. If we happen to miss one does that mean they're not included and so on the second finding we say every child, but we don't list out all the groups so it. My understanding is that we sorry, Senator Parch like I have a habit of pretending that we're in person and I'm French Canadian and so from a big family and so I interrupt a lot and I apologize for that. As I think Mr chair knows because I've done it before in this committee and I apologize. My understanding is that our language is not exclusive of those. And that's not something that we would be supportive of so I'd want to, I guess then check that language it. I think it might say including but including the categories of it's a pretty comprehensive list so it. Yes, there can always be another categorization certainly, but I think we went really, really broad in terms of the agency's categorization. I guess in that if if we say every child that would include everybody so we're not disincluding anybody there. Then when you do we have to, or should we list as them out every time we talk about every child so like in the second finding. We don't say whatever their race gender, anything else. So that's, that's my only just, it's just a question for that I'm not opposed to. Yeah, Senator or deputy secretary Boucher. Sure. So, this is something that we do a lot in an education so of course we want the best outcomes for all students but we, we're calling out this equity piece because we want to make sure that students who fall into at least these categories have special attention given their marginally underserved status. So, we don't actually see those as mutually exclusive and we don't you know we think that we think it's okay to have both. And we don't think that saying all excludes certainly doesn't exclude historically under under served youth and we don't think when we say, when we want to actually speak about some of the particular challenges and barriers that historically marginalized youth experience that it somehow, you know diminishes a focus on on all students we think that there's room at the table for both of those perspectives. Senator Hooker. I think that you know we're referring to this list are similar lists and a lot of the legislation that we've been doing this year, and it is a focus. And also I think that where it says whatever their race color, and I think that makes it more inclusive. I think you do want to follow up. No, that's fine I mean I agree with the goal if we're trying to highlight that those that are have been suffering from inequitable education, but the way the way I read the list is just trying to, it's. Yeah, I'm fine with it. It's fun, you know, I agree with the goal and so it and it's, it's a finding so it, it's fine. So, unless I see an objection why don't we have Mr. Demeray there with us. Mr. Demeray if you would plan on including that language, we'd appreciate it. Thank you, Ms Finn, section two. Sure. We added our public schools. So this is just to what we were thinking about is that. That are our schools. When we're talking when we're talking about community schools and we're really talking about building and rebuilding around the community school model that we recognize that they're number one that it's a dynamic process of they're being designed, but they, they also need. resources. And so that's equipped but resources to deliver on the promise and which is in that the line before. And I just, we just wanted to, again, it may feel a little bit like we're, we're, we're just. We don't have any language for for its own sake but it, it is to acknowledge that the schools need the resources and, and they need the time to design or redesign, you know, that's so that's what that language is about. Questions there. I would like to get on every single one I would like to get through them all just so we in the next 20 minutes or so so why don't we keep going. If you want to just give that stuff. I'd say the highlights of each one. Three, that's language that adds really the assets of people helps to elevate the importance of the community school approach and in assets language and still acknowledging the challenges and the needs. And, you know, the beauty of the community schools is that it, it's really the focus is on bringing in the unique assets of both the communities but the people the students and so, so we're suggesting kind of reframing the findings to focus on assets. So at the same time, you know, acknowledging that there are plenty of challenges that that we're dealing with. Okay. Number four. So number four is the introduction to the concept of a new pillar, an additional pillar, which support it says supports the necessity of safe inclusive and equitable learning environments. And that that is like the way to for us to be introducing that as a pillar in the, in the, in the bill itself. Dr. Boucher, do you see any objections any concerns with that forth. No, okay. And I'll just wait for senators to raise hands for questions or concerns. Okay. Number five. Number five. Let's see. This is a changed again to focus on one of the folks raised the issue of instead of focusing on the gaps in, you know, is to is to focus on the systems issues that get to those like to achieve my gaps. And that's reducing the systemic racial and economic injustices and equities is, is how we framed that so it's, it's kind of, it's just a, you know, it's, it's another way of acknowledging that there are achievement gaps and other challenges but it's, you know, saying we're committed in this work to getting at the root of those of those challenges. I'm looking at number seven additional findings on page three. So I want to say something about those. So this is again, adding a, you know, kind of a focus on the essence of community schools, and, and we're thinking, and that this gets tricky but we're thinking that this could help, you know, highlight, think about informing the eligibility and evaluation methods. So it's describing community schools in a way where I'm not sure exactly how to do this I'm definitely not an evaluator. But as just a way to start thinking about how how the AOE is going to determine who is eligible and so this just put that in the findings as a, as a, as a step toward that, perhaps. So this, Mr. Demere, if you see anything, a lot of this, it's a lot of, it's great, you know, in general, I'm feeling very supportive of it. It's just as long as we're not overlapping with anything that's already in the bill, or just, you know, I think for our Ledge Council to keep an eye on it. And certainly Dr. Boucher as we go through this any any concerns. Okay. Turning to the purpose. And this is the, this is where we're suggesting taking out the word program is essentially, you know, keeping taking out the word program and just identifying this as a implementation implementation of community schools. Does that tell me a little bit more if you wouldn't mind. Why is why tell me that the problem with programs. Let me see how this is this is what John Castle, what John Castle said, he said that we, and he's talking about education, you know, in schools education in general, we've drifted away from seeing the interconnectedness of our work. He's specifically talking about the four pillars because he outlines why they're so important that the ones that are named right now. And that that should be emphasized as an approach around community schools. And he's saying, you know, encourages us encourages you not to define community schools as a program, because that it makes it much more static, and that that, you know, tendency to think about it as okay, this is, here's a program and here's our checklist mindset. Okay, so we've done a B and C and it's not as dynamic as just naming, you know, the community schools approach just community schools and thinking about it as a, as an approach to, to this work. I'm personally fine with keeping programs in I think it, it to me it makes, you know, there are programs that are going to come from community schools and these programs are going to, you know, are sort of, you will part of that wrap around service. So, I mean, I can I can go either way but I see Senator Hooker is going to. I'm just wondering, as Ms. Finn said that framing it as more of a system, and as opposed to a program program sort of has a finite or. You know, they, there is a mistake in the testimony, it's actually programs. It was not program in the, I mean, and there is a different there is a difference there programs that are going to be instituted, compared to the community school program. So, just know that. I think the broader aspect of it, while all encompassing piece is what sets it apart from other programs that are implemented at schools, but that's I need it may be just semantics and. Yeah, yeah, I'm going to stick with programs unless I see a lot of objections right now. And then we can always come back to it, if you don't mind, if how about this and I'll flag it as something that we return to and have a discussion on that's the one area. And then there's also the second piece of that Ms. Finn, remove education. Let's see. Oh, yeah, sorry. That was also a suggestion from an educator that that to define education more broadly as learning opportunities and then making sure that we include the necessary supports in there. So, so that is. Yeah, that those are educators suggestions to remove the word education and to put instead high quality learning opportunities and necessary supports nation of community school programs that provides students with equitable access to high quality learning opportunities and necessary supports that create a task force on Universalist. And why do you have Universalist school lunch there. Because that's where it was. The new. Yeah. There I see it now I see it now. Thank you. Okay. I mean, I'm okay with it. Yeah. I'm sorry, I think it brings it beyond the walls of the school. Yeah, when you say learning opportunities. You know, we're talking about that intersection with community with families. So you can learn in many different situations. So when we think of education in this context, you know, in the context of a school. There, I think has a different meaning. So maybe the learning opportunities sort of opens it up more. Yeah, I feel like it. I feel like it does center person. I don't know if there's a real definition between two. Delineation between the two words, but in the, you know, the findings we talk about equitable education, equitable learning opportunities. So I don't know. I don't know if it matters so I go either way. I don't care really. If there isn't a definition should we keep education because we're talking about that in findings. Mr. Demeray. Do we keep Education or do we, we need thoughts. Well, I only thought it's whatever you do. It should be consistent. Okay, I'm not sure I'm looking. I'm not sure many of these are making huge big changes in the bill itself, I'll be honest. I mean, it's, these are language, you know, I don't see the bill passed with some of these without them. I'm thinking they're maybe a little bit more holistic a little bit more. You know, some added language, I'll be honest, Ms. Finn, I don't see this as these as huge game changers, if you will, overall. Let's let's again I'll flag this, but let's keep it education for now and we'll keep programs in for now and then we can always come back. So let's go let's continue on to the section to a since we're going to keep programs in for now so beyond the next section of red into yellow where it says add to integrated community supports. And this is language that really is meant to elevate what young people bring. And it's, it's very, it's very specific. I know it's a lot of additional language but it. The bill. The hope is that we're, we're really seeing community schools through this lens of, you know, what young people bring, what the capacity of students and families offer their schools, and so that we're moving from not from but we're adding to the concept of services to the concept, you know, the full service model to the concept of really bringing in the the value and again assets that are students or youth or children bring and their families and community. What is universal design for learning. Yeah, that's, that is a particular, and you know that that's a really good question that is a particular approach to to curriculum that that allows for different different ways of learning. To make sure that students with or young people who with different learning ability are kind of included in, and there's a focus there on, particularly on like linguistic, it says cultural linguistic diversity. The universal design part is really to make sure that all kids, all students have, you know, access to to the learning the teaching and learning that's going on. Dr. Boucher. Is this something that's recognized. And is this something that you'd be comfortable with. There's like policy language and we don't want to make any decisions without consulting you. Yes. Thank you Mr chair and if I may there. There's nothing about Ms Finn suggestions that is worrisome to us. Okay. I have a hard stop at three. Yeah, and we're, we're just going to we're just hitting the highlights here will. I think the only spot where we're going to be returning air the issues around some questions about whether or not the word programs or education are going to be used, but we'll just continue. Let's continue with Ms Finn and wrap this up and then we're going to move to you but it sounds like again, everything here, nothing is, is concerning to you this being proposed. Okay, great. No, no, Mr chair, could I actually add a piece though to what Senator Hooker and Ms Finn have said about the systems piece, please, we would actually support that as well because one of the issues of this bill and I think of of a sole focus even on schools per se is that it's a bit out of step with a frame around a district approach and many of our inequities are actually across schools within a district and so we want to find that sweet spot and if we're moving forward with this where you're also holding that district accountable for making sure that all schools in its district have what is needed for an equitable education and so I think that's how you get at this because when you talk about a system of community schools, it allows for that flexibility to be able to be thinking about your full sort of group of schools at a district level or even in a region. And many of the supports and resources that miss that I talked about we would want those to be actually negotiated from the agency of Education's perspective at a district level with attention toward those schools that need it the but that district piece I mean if if we aren't really taking that kind of lens I worry that we're out of step with Act 46 for instance where we've been really trying to push into a more systemic kind of education system and I think that there's a way to do it here. And I might be using slightly different language than what Senator Hooker and Ms. Finneve said but I think that we're in agreement with with not so much about the the word program or not for us it's more just about that lens that schools are very important but you need to think about like a system of schools and you need to think right because you wouldn't want for instance just and I'll be quiet but you wouldn't want for instance, an amazing K3 community school and then the student is going off to a middle school that is is really terrible and is in his antithetical to what was going on in the community school. Does that make sense. It does so we're what language would you like. I think I think just instead of program you could put system. Or even like a system of community schools or something like that. Okay, I think it's actually I think it's already. It's baked into the logistics in some sense because the districts are who has to actually apply for the money, but I do think it warrants. So just some tweaking a language and I can take a look at it over the weekend and if I see any places that are quick fixes I can get back to you. For the record we're still not in full support because the timing but I'm realizing that this is a train we're not we've lost and it's moving forward. We're going to continue to have a conversation with you on. And I do need to just interrupt for one moment Senator perch lick. Great news Senate appropriations would like to see you on h426 if you don't mind. I'm going to send you a zoom link right now. If you don't mind. Is that right now. Okay, it's. You're emailing it to me or what I'm emailing it to you it's on its way to zoom link. If you don't mind. Really appreciate it. Okay, so. So Jim are you taking some of this down I think we're getting somewhere I think we're will end up in a good spot. I think that additional language makes it more inclusive more broad gets its systems. All feels good to me miss Finn. I do want to keep. Keep plugging along here with us for another five minutes and then we're going to shift to the deputy secretary. I think C on page six C is just again it's adding language that's very specific about, you know, making sure that all students and their families feel a sense of belonging and it's actually bringing us back to or or leading to the fifth pillar that we're proposing. And then on D. Add to collaborative leadership and practices and integrated school and community leadership team that would include youth and family representatives, I think it's, it's, you know, it's described in more detail, I realize it's described in more detail in the site based leadership team. And this we put this in before that change, but I would highlight the youth part because that the students and youth are not having been listed in the that that site based leadership team and we think that they that they should be you know members that they should be included and and their voices elevated. And then, okay, and then he on the next is pages that is this fifth pillar if you will, safe inclusive and equitable learning environments. That sounds good. Absolutely. Oh, here's the here it is on page 75 site based leadership team at students that so that's really what we're suggesting there. So, so I clear on page seven ads students to I leadership team lists. Ah, yes, that's fine. Got it. Thank you. And then, so this, this, I will say that, as I said earlier, I'm not exactly sure how this would work so you know, we, we're really thinking about if we want to talk about we want to think about this and through an equity framework. If the AOE is determining. I think with now it was with the secretary agency of secretary of the agency of human services but now the trauma. Staff, but that that they use an equity, unequity lens and again the AOE has this. And there are others but AOE has this great equity lens tool. And it would help. I, you know, we think it would help because it would give the framework for what the community, you know what the school districts or the community in school districts are are aiming for right in in in this approach and in in trying to get a community school up and running. Right. And so that that's our recommendation. I'm not sure how how that works with the AOE, you know, and their process. Dr. Boucher. How do you feel about that? It's actually, as I think I shared before, the process that we use that we do, but I don't think it hurts to actually put put that in there. I don't know. I think the committee would need to discern whether you want the equity tool to be used in making decisions about the grants or if you want it to be. You know, you could get I guess what I would say is you could get around it by saying that that needs to be something that's addressed in the applications, and then the agency needs to have a tool in addition to conferring with and if I might if I may I would actually clean that language up a little and say I would say agency of education secretary that's interchangeable as Mr. Damary knows but I would actually have the consulting be with the mental health or the commissioner of mental health, including the trauma person because the way it reads right now it almost like precludes other people from mental health being part of that. So, that's like tiny, that's tiny, but like, I think it does it just, it just will help for logistics and clarification. So I think we agree we agree with an equity lens. That's kind of what we do with all of our grants now. So, we're happy to, you know, put that in. Okay. And we'll, you know, again with all these additions, most of which I think sound more than fine. So the more I read into them some of them will shift this I think and make, make things stronger and clearer and more comprehensive so. So thank you miss Finn, I think what we'll end up doing is, Jim you have enough to go on right now there really aren't, you know, we could. I'm not going to, you know, draw a line in the sand over programs and things like that but let's keep them in there for now programs and the word education. And we'll look at them again in a new copy when we come back to this on as a committee on Tuesday. Okay, yeah. Thank you so much. Thank you, I appreciate it. Committee so we have a secretary who share with us for another 20 minutes. And I'm sure the leaders have hopefully had an opportunity to just review again h106 the community school spills. I don't know if anybody else has questions but I'll kick it off if you don't mind. Dr. Boucher. A couple of things that you've raised, I just want to go back to so that we can have the best information and before we make some decisions. One of them is the question of the funding, you know, you've pointed out as has the chair of a house said a few times in other conversations all these schools and we all know schools are getting a lot of money.  I just want to talk through a little bit more. The two options that were being presented here with one is, you know, using this S or set aside fund to grant things out another option would be to somehow again have the agency identify those schools that need these services the most and or these programs the most and sort of work with them to create these programs given the extra given given the amount of money that they've received so if you want to just say say something about that that'd be great. Yeah, thank you. Thank you Mr chair and by the way I am very sorry that I have the hard stop at three I'm really sorry that are it's someone it's a DC person we got to talk to so I apologize. Clicked. Um, I think it's a great question. So, um, I think it again has to do with the timing but then your question raise another question for me so here's here's what I think will happen as it is now. So, so right now the eligibility criteria are very broad. So, for instance, I think the eligibility criterion one is 40% or more free and reduced lunch and I just want to remind or or or educate the committee if folks already know that the average student level so it's a little bit different but it's pretty much the you know it's it's it's in the ballpark of student level frl eligibility is 38 to 40% so right there you basically said who is eligible is you know half of our schools. And then you've said eligibility criterion two is comprehensive or equity supports. So comprehensive supports, I think works if we're talking if what the committee would like is a more targeted outreach to schools because those are the bottom 5% if you will in terms of our S estate plan. So in terms of academic achievement and the rest of our quality education quality standards. Equity though identification for equity supports is a is a very big list as well of our schools because we're not doing a great job as we all know around issues of equity with our historically marginalized students which is why we're having a lot of these conversations. So, and I think the reason I'm getting into some of these details is because I think that really gets at your question, Mr chair which is, what is the best approach to take so right now if it's, if it's a grant program that these eligible schools can apply for it's kind of going to probably look like like our grant programs usually look and so you know there are a lot of entities that will be able to apply for it and we will be, you know, we will have to follow what is stipulated in the statute about how to actually select those schools. Those districts on behalf of schools. Another option would be, we actually use those eligibility criteria and there I would actually recommend that those get tightened up to actually come up with a smaller subset of schools, districts and schools, and we could do outreach to them to say, here's this community school initiative. There you go initiative, instead of program. Here's what community schools are. You know here the supports you can have. You know, we're we're ready to work with you on that. But then again for me that's the real timing piece because I don't think we're going to be ready to do as an agency I don't think we're going to be ready to do that until next session. So it really is I know I'm, I'm kind of like talking about all of these different concerns but they're all interrelated. So, um, the other piece I would say just while I have the floor even though I'm kind of I'm giving you everything all at once is, I think the needs assessment as it's actually talked about in the bill is right it is the correct level of needs assessment that you would need to be successful at a community schools initiative. I really, really am concerned. I just don't think that districts will be able to pull that needs assessment off and time per September 21, even if they're using their recovery planning, which if I were in their shoes that's what I would do. But that again had a really different lens right it was really on those three different recovery areas which is related to what they would need in the needs assessment. So I think that's something to think through and then the other piece I would say is that one of the challenges that we're facing and I'm really glad that Senator Alliance just popped on is that community school initiatives, they're only going to work if we can if we actually have the services available to actually like bring them together and coordinate them and so I just worry that we are putting a lot of stock in a community schools initiative, and at the end of the day what we really need to be doing with state dollars is to actually build up that infrastructure and make sure that there are mental health services available that there are trauma informed practices that districts have access to. So again, you know in a nutshell it's still about the timing for us, but I do, I do see and I want to honor that I see the committee has listened and you know has taken seriously some of the things that we brought forth and I really appreciate that and I just want to say that. I just don't know how many. I don't know how many I'm not getting a strong sense from the field that there are many that would take this opportunity this coming summer, I know, I think, I think Superintendent Castle would, and I think I've spoken with him actually. So I think he actually would be very interested in it. And maybe that's okay. Maybe that's, you know, maybe that's okay. Is there. I want this to go, you know, this I wanted to be a success I wanted to not be messy, if you will, I know everybody has a lot on their plates right now and, you know, so I'm hearing from some that. To have this needs to have three years we've got to get the three year thing going, because if not it's not going to fly you know the three years of funding. But is there sort of a, and also I completely respect the agency has a lot of stuff going on schools have a lot of things going on this we want to have helped them, we don't want it to be, you know, in some ways. And we don't, we don't want just two schools to apply and we can arrange it so that you know, two schools that are interested can move forward without even this going forward right now but is there a happy medium in this Dr. In other words, could we say that these assessments are due. I tend to, you know, I share your concern here, you know, September is right around the corner schools summer just transitioning back you know all these things. Could we say that they're doing January, you know, does that make a difference in any way, where say they're doing January until instead of the following September it just gives an extra teachers are back people are having meetings people have an opportunity to sort of see what is an action in their schools and kind of go from there I don't know. Yeah, please. Yeah, first of all, um, it's not a grant program is written. Right, right, right. Our grant program. Yeah. Basically the agencies and powers make determinations about how the funds are used. Second, the needs assessment isn't by September one. The needs assessment is not due by September one is the first year of grant funding is used to do the grant, the needs assessment. So you have the whole year under this language. I think that needs to thank you for that. I think that needs to be clarified because my understanding when I read this was similar to Mr. to senator campions. So, because one of the suggestions I was going to have was to actually really call out that the first year is for planning, and that would really get at this issue. And we do. So I think the distinction might be whether this is a grant competition versus a grant like we have to actually give them a grant to give them the dollars so there's a little bit of we can't just give them a check. That's how state dollars work. So, so we do have to award them a grant. I think perhaps a Mr. Damary what you're talking about is it's not set up right now to be a competitive grant program that there, there would be selected schools although I think that that's not clear in terms of how it's written right now that there would be a particular subset of schools that would automatically qualify for these funds. As I just said, in my testimony, the way the eligibility criteria are set right now that would. It would basically be, you know, probably 75% of districts and schools, which there's not enough for them to all have 110 million dollars by three years, even if we took the entire set aside. And I'm noticing that that the ability is wide. That's true. But there was language added in the last draft about how the agency is to select the recipient. And that's on page eight of the bill. So that is for us, hugely broad, and we would need to have some indication from the committee about, like, you know, how we would be able to do that. So that is for us, hugely broad, and we would need to have some indication from the committee about, like, how does the committee define need, like, like what I'm not talking specifically just at a conceptual level. So for instance, as an example, would need to be proposals or schools that are that are documenting that they have a significant need for trauma informed practices. And that's why they're looking for a community schools. Adventure. Would it be would need be based on population demographics or, you know, just to throw this out as one example, you know, emergency. I mean, it's such it's right in the news right now, right. But like waiting lists in emergency rooms for getting youth on mental health services. Would it be based on, you know, proportion of population that is not getting dental care. I mean, like, it's, it's so huge that we would need some. I would request that we have guidance then from the general assembly on like, what are the parameters around need that. The committee wants us to use. Does that make sense. Because just to say need is so broad. And I guess I was thinking that an easier way to do that would be to restrict the eligibility criteria from the get go. And then just not, and then just do kind of like, here's the money. Yes, you have to apply because you have to say what you're going to do with the money, and you need to have a report do at the end of the granting period, but it's not really. It's not really a review. We have many grants like that where there isn't like, there's not a review. It's not a competition in other words, does that I hope this is making sense to folks. I think it is. It is. It's maybe one of the things that would be helpful, Jim, just to review for the committee, if the bill were to go into effect as written right now. You would just take us through what schools would have to do the first year, second year and third year. Okay. And then there will be an interaction with the with AOA. So, what the bill says is that the first year of finding should be used to conduct the needs and asset assessment of the school to determine what it's necessary to develop a community school program. To implement during the second and third years of finding then will be the implementation phase. So first year is in each needs an asset assessment. Second two years is implementation of an action plan. So the school would have let's say between September in a school that the agency has identified as needing this, or really warranting these kinds of services. And that would be identified, you know, sometime in the summer and then schools in that first year, let's say September to July, September to June, they would be identifying, that's when they would be doing their planning and things like that. Yeah, if you don't have a coordinate you hire one. Yeah, I'll be one from staff. Yeah, the first task would be to do that needs an asset assessment. Okay. Okay. I missed that so thanks Jim. Yeah, no, no, and I appreciate that. I don't know. That's all be honest here I mean there've been a lot of things going back and forth we've been on the floor, you know we just, you know, passing a number of different bills, things are changing and so that review is very helpful. Yeah, I simplified that because it both says to if you've done an asset assessment in the last three years that basically meets the same criteria, you have to do it again. Yeah. So really if in just the last couple of minutes, Dr. shake. The big lift for the agency would be identifying the schools that need, I mean, if it had, if we had kept it as a grant process, going through grants or going through proposals, all those kinds of things but sort of shifting it where you're identifying the schools that need it the most. This is that that's where the, and I'm not saying it's not but that's where that the big lift is for the agency. It's not a big lift. I mean if the, and again I'm going to go back to that so it would be a big lift right now. Yeah, as because basically, you know, with with minimal hyperbole every school is probably going to be able to be eligible. Yeah. And so, so then it kind of becomes. Okay, so so then we have to craft some way to select them and that's kind of where I was saying like we need some guidance on that. So we can actually, or if the committee can actually maybe take a minute to think about who do you want to get these funds and think about the eligibility criteria that way I think that would be a much more palatable lift for us. That sounds great that sounds like that would leave us in a good spot so for Tuesday and I know there are people watching this who are really dedicated to this bill. I can work with folks over the weekend and bring it to the committee on Tuesday and say hey here's some here it this would tighten the criteria, we would give to the agency so as Dr Boucher is saying, you know instead of looking at all of the schools in the state basically we could narrow it down and that would. I mean just make sense on a lot of different levels. And I think like that's a great spot to leave this, Mr MRA. You're clarifying before, Mr Chair leaves. I think you mentioned that you get a lot more schools. When you include equity supports. So if we took it to be the schools with the favor some more poverty and comprehensive supports would that be narrow enough. I think it was and absolutely because then it would probably be pretty not solely but pretty mutually exclusive so I didn't bring that up, because I do really. I do really want to honor the equity work that needs to be done in our state and you certainly just heard that from this fan. Yeah, so logistically. Yes, if you remove that as a criterion, it would, it would absolutely shrink that pool. I still though think that setting the free and reduced lunch at the average about the average free and reduced lunch percentage is, is, is, is not the way to go. I think you can actually, you know, say something I mean for instance comprehensive is the is the 5%. I'm not sure you would want to actually like completely make the, the top 5%. You know, the proportions of free free Maria's lunch in the state because that might be too restrictive but you could say like the top quarter for something like that. Yeah, and then you can play around with the and or for those eligibility. You know that that second eligibility criteria is 5%. It's it's the bottom 5% in terms of performance for schools. If you were to go to the FRL, you could think about and then think about like whether you want those both to be criteria or just one. Okay. So, but this sounds great. This sounds like we're in a good spot. Mr. DeMarie and I can talk. We'll also connect with people over the weekend committee feels good with that and we'll bring back some language that will hopefully tighten this up. I think we'll put everybody in a good place to move forward. Dr. Boucher. Thank you very much for coming in. Good luck in your next meetings and we will look forward to sharing this language with you. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Is it the weekend yet? Not yet. I know you're probably all feeling the same. Have a great rest of the day. Thanks you too. Okay, committee. This feels really much better. I feel like if we can work to tighten up some of, first of all, I think Ms. Finn's language was great. Very solid really, really helps advance the bill will tighten up the language around eligibility so that the agency can can really get their their heads and hands around who most needs this in our state, these kinds of services. And I think that's that's a win-win and then Senator Perslick, I would still like your witness if you'd be so kind of come in on Tuesday probably to weigh in on on this next draft of a bill please go ahead. I wondered if I could ask the question. Yeah. They do this work they're working with some schools to do kind of community school programs for using that word. And so can I ask that question now are you. Yeah, please go for it. So, and I did an email to Jim about it. But I guess this is question to Jim or just to the committee so this is a, this is where it says that they have to hire the purpose uses a fund on page 10. So, where it says hire a coordinator. So the B lines 12 through 17. So at the end of that, it says augment work already being performed to develop an implemented community school program. So that's the kind of work that they're already doing to their question was, would a school be able to apply for a grant to do that work, or is the way this language is written this is work that the coordinator would do, not the school. Basically, is that last part of that. This be is all one sentence I think so at the end of that sentence where it says augment work already being performed. Is that being augmented by the coordinator or by the school. And is my question clear. Well, you got question clear the language is broad. It doesn't limit to being done by the school or just by the coordinator, it's just talking about what being done. And arguments are very broad words so. I'm not sure the answer to your question but so how I would read it. Other stuff in here isn't stuff that the coordinator does because it says higher communities coordinator, develop then develop and implement a community school program. That's just what the school is doing and the coordinators is part of that but I just, I wanted to make sure that it's not the intent to whoever came up with this line which wasn't that the coordinator in collaboration with this leadership team is developing and implementing the program. Which I guess now that I said a lot, probably nobody thought that that it's really the whole school doing it, not the court, not the school coordinator. But according there is, is the question is there to coordinate right so that according to implementation, but involved, I would imagine, large parts of school staff to implement a program like this. Horsak, are you concerned that not everybody that the process may in some way not be as inclusive or. Yeah, the concern was like some people, some schools already doing this kind of work. They haven't hired a coordinator. And I guess, I guess I don't know if they care if they hire coordinator now but I guess they wouldn't want to want to. They're doing this work kind of as nonprofits, consulting to the school almost. Okay, and they're wondering is now only the coordinator can do that work or could the school still team up with these nonprofits that are supporting them and use the grant money to do that. Oh, I see. Okay. That's a great question. So, yeah, okay, go ahead, Jim. Yeah, I didn't appreciate that angle of your question so I appreciate the explanation. So this line was just say you have to hire one. Or doesn't it one from so it doesn't contemplate having a consultant doing this work it envisions it being embedded in school as an employee. So, like when it says anything that's in collaboration with this light based leadership team, that's not the school. That's the coordinator. And so that this, hey, we're augmenting work already being. Yeah, we're working collaboration with this episode team. Correct. Yeah. Center personally, are you going to go ahead. Sorry. No, you go first please. Maybe it's broad enough to where because it's this whole section is what the school uses funds for so I'm sure as long as they hire a coordinator, if they had other money to work with, you know, others. I'm just the way I read it that they could use the school could use that money. They still have to hire a coordinator, but with the coordinator and the site based leadership team, if they wanted to work with a nonprofit that helps schools. Yeah, nothing that precludes that in this program. Yeah. Yeah, and the other thing that just say no center person I don't know if you have a bad connection but you're pausing periodic you're freezing periodically. Right. So Jim said it doesn't. Nothing precludes that from happening in this bill did you hear that paper. But what I'm interested in is, for example, you know, the agency a lot of times will contract things out. Are you looking center personally for a nonprofit for school to be able to just basically maybe not hire a non coordinator because it doesn't work for them and work in another organization. Or do you want to are you not trying to alter the coordinator role and hire. I think hiring a coordinator makes sense. I don't know what others might think. But you know, it seems like we are testing my clear that the coordinator is potential. Right. Could they augment the coordinator. Yeah, he's doing and there's that and maybe when when we hear from them on Tuesday, we'll hear if they do have a different opinion, but I'm not sure. Yes, I am unstable today. Okay. You're not but your internet is. Okay. I think we've we're getting somewhere I think by Tuesday, we'll have some additional language to tighten this up. And hopefully be able to advance it on Wednesday. Senator person before we take a quick five minute break you want to tell us about your visit to approach. Yeah, they had a lot of questions. I wasn't really ready for the details of the bill. I couldn't remember it. School school construction. Okay. H four six, they voted it out seven zeros or seven in there. So they, they were, and they're going to take our amendment and swap out that section with our language. So they had a lot of questions about the inventory and the assessment and when they were being done and who was doing them and how much they cost and what exactly was included and when I, and when I came in and had a question, you had all discussion about rate on. They didn't ask me about that but they, you know, they had a lot of questions but in the end. I just said you can read the language. But they passed it out. Great. Thank you for that. And I do believe we may be seeing an amendment on raid on next week. So I don't know if you if Senator Pearson has been in contact with you. We may be seeing that with three good two events. Okay committee, let's just come back at 315 and go through S 16 and possibly wrap up for that.


Let us look at how indiegaya or control or self-control or self-regulation is studied in the positive psychology. If you look at the 24 character strengths that these 24 character strengths I mentioned in the very beginning of this course are identified with the thorough research of various traditions and Salishman and his colleagues have identified these 24 character strengths which are called not talent but character strengths because they give meaning, direction, purpose and sustenance to any talent. Temperance is the one core character strength identified in the schema proposed by Salishman and colleagues. So, self-temperance is nothing but self-regulation. So, as indiegaya is identified very important aspect or way of attaining well-being. Temperance is also identified in the modern positive psychology as a very important way of attaining well-being. Self-regulation, patience, hyperactivity, willpower these are also reflections of temperance and there is already a literature there has been a literature on these aspects much before the proposition and the elaboration of the character strengths by Salishman and colleagues. So, there is a research on these aspects. Impact of these qualities is studied in context of various things like overeating, scooming, overeating, addiction, shoplifting and this preceding of the National Academy of Science 2011 reports these studies. We have found that self-regulation our ability to control our senses have direct association with control on overeating, smoking, addiction and shoplifting etc. Self-control during first decade of life is found to be extremely well connected with how much your earning happens income happens in the later years. It is also connected to saving behavior, financial security, occupational prestige, physical and mental health, substance abuse and lack of criminal conviction among others. That is why for kids it is even more important because it is like strengthening our mind has much higher dividend if it is done in the beginning of the career. If it is done in the beginning of the career or beginning of life that builds the very sound foundation on which later desirable behavior can be enacted much with much more ease. So, Indriya Jay is studied in the form of self-control in the psychology and is found to be very well associated with some of the very important aspect which make our life successful which make our career successful. Studies also suggest that there is no such thing like too much self-control. If it is result of self-motivation, if it is result of right tattva bodh, then whatever amount of self-control is done it is it does not harm. Self-control which is imposed, self-imposed by imposed of others that can harm, that can damage in long term. But when self-control is attained with the proper tattva bodh, with the proper insights into a thing then no self-control is too much. The outcome in the adulthood confirms that. So, discipline childhood is not anyway makes people suffer in their adulthood psychologically. So, that does not happen. Remarkably the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status. What does that mean? That means self-control can compensate for general intelligence. And we have also seen in our research more cognitive resources if let loose, if people with the more cognitive resources or general intelligence if they are not mindful they end up becoming more agitated. So, that the current study this slide also suggests that either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status both of these can be compensated by having right self-control. So, there are few questions. Does indriyajaya reduces happiness? Answer is it increases life satisfaction and well-being. It does not reduces happiness. So, discipline is good. Abhyas and Vairag, these are the two core, these are the two foundations of the yogic practice. We should not think about attaining well-being in life if we are not ready and if we do not practice Abhyas and Vairag, if we do not practice self-control we should not hope for the well-being in the long run. What yogic tradition says about reasons behind lack of indriyajaya? That means many time people know that what is the right behavior but is still they indulge into the wrong behavior. This is called Duryodhan syndrome. Duryodhan syndrome you many of you must have heard that when he was asked why you do what you are doing the answer of Duryodhan the character in the Mahabharata who was the head of the Kauravas and who did not give their rightful share in the property to the Pandavas their cousins and then the war of Mahabharata took place and all that destruction happened eventually Duryodhan was defeated. So, Duryodhan was in the in the in the earlier in the text he is asked why do you do what you are doing? This is clearly not right. Duryodhan said that Jnanaamya Dharmam nachame pravrutti. Jnanaamya Dharmam nachame nivrutti. I know what is dharma.  I am not able to indulge into it. Jnanaamya Dharmam Adharma me jantam. I know what is not right is but that is not my nivrutti. I am not able to get rid of that. Yogic tradition also explains why many of us suffer from this Duryodhan syndrome. I am calling it syndrome because it has impact on all aspects of life. So, there are two things Pragyaparad, Ashtamendriyartha Sanyoga. These are the two things Pragyaparad means not following dharma even after knowing that. So, we need to be conscious about dharma and we also have to enact according to that. To reduce the Pragyaparad, Margare Gentil has designed a very beautiful course called giving voice to values. What this course is about? It course says that this course teaches students that you might be having right values but you need to give voice to it. You need to enact on it. There are certain interventions which can make people, which can prepare people to enact on those values. So, to reduce Pragyaparad, you can also have a look at the course on giving voice to values. A lot of that component is available online. You can check that. Another aspect, another reason why people are not able to follow Indriyajaya is Ashtamendriyartha Sanyoga. Indulgence into the satisfaction of the Indriya, satisfaction of the senses. For that we need to have awareness. If we look at the sense pleasure that happens only for few seconds. A good food gives pleasure only those few seconds when it is on our tongue. Before that and after that it does not give pleasure. For that pleasure, for the pleasure of those few seconds if we can hold our awareness, if we can hold our breath, we can control that. Yog help us in controlling that Ashtamendriyartha Sanyoga. That means it can help us to look at this Sanyoga of the union of Indriyas or senses with the substance and look at that that is only a matter of few seconds and if we can and you also help us to have control on those moments. So, these are the ways yogic tradition can help us to attain Indriyajaya. Ultimately it is about well-programmed life. That means having good hobbies, prayers, having commitment for the right cause, bigger cause, some of these things naturally result into Indriyajaya. If I am inspired by some big picture, if I am inspired by some what in Hindi called Udhath Udeshya for a higher purpose, then naturally we will be able to control our senses. If we are inspired and motivated by those long term things, we can forego these short term immediate term pleasures more easily. So, that is why Dharmakriya is important. So, Dharmakriya is facilitated by Indriyajaya. Dharmakriya also helps into keep practice practicing Indriyajaya. We are going to discuss that in the next part of this video.