MINUTES OF THE Special Meeting of the DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES Douglas High School November 29, 2011 3:30 p.m. Present: Trustees: Sharla Hales Thomas Moore Karen Chessell Ross Chichester Randy Green Teri Jamin Cynthia Trigg President Vice President Clerk Personnel: Lisa Noonan, Superintendent Rich Alexander, Assistant Superintendent Human Resources Lyn Gorrindo, Assistant Superintendent Education Services Holly Luna, Chief Financial Officer 1. Call to Order Mrs. Hales called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. Tom Morgan led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mrs. Chessell moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Ms. Jamin. Motion carried 5/0. Public Comment Public comment on items other than topics on the agenda was requested at 3:36 p.m. There was none. Mrs. Trigg arrived at 3:38 p.m. 2. Employee Recognition (Special Recognition) Dr. Noonan took a moment to thank Sheila Anderson, Accountability and Grants Specialist; and Brian Frazier, Director of Assessments and Grants for their efforts on Count Day support. Work included system setup, training of personnel, and data entry verification. The Count Day reporting had been highly commended by auditors of the District and was a noteworthy accomplishment. Mr. Frazier commended Mrs. Anderson for her tireless efforts in material and document preparation, as well as data input. Special Meeting, November 29, 2011 Page 1
Mrs. Hales thanked Mrs. Anderson and Mr. Frazier for their accomplishments. 3. Bid Award GES Asbestos Abatement Contract Consent (For Possible Action) There was no discussion on this single Consent item. No public comment was offered. Mrs. Chessell moved to approve the request by Business Services to award a contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, APC Contractors, Inc., for the abatement of hazardous materials at Gardnerville Elementary School in the amount of $89,975.00. It is also requested that an Owner s Contingency of $20,000 is set at $20,000 for any additional mobilizations needed as the mitigation progresses. Funding for this project will be drawn from the 2010 bond funding, seconded by Mrs. Trigg. 4. Douglas High School Education Specifications Document (For Possible Action) Dr. Noonan shared the latest draft of the DHS Education Specifications document, a guide aligning educational program needs with future construction. While it was not a requirement for the Board to take action, doing so would formalize the contents and ensure the specifications are honored. Dr. Noonan asked if Board members had any recommendations for change to the Education Specifications. Ms. Jamin suggested addressing the issues around moving the ninth grade to the DHS campus, including the need to change the transition process from the tenth, to the ninth grade. It was noted a separate section of the campus was proposed to maintain the ninth grade community. Discussion continued regarding the need for ninth graders to acclimate to the high school, but also to have access to electives and be provided opportunities in advanced coursework that might be located elsewhere on campus. Mr. Chichester moved to adopt the Douglas High School Education Specifications document, with the inclusion of the ability for students who excel in the ninth grade to be able to attend advanced classes they are capable of participating in, seconded by Mr. Green. 5. DHS Site Option Review Workshop (Information and Discussion) Ellen Hooper and Tim Haley of SKW presented site construction options in a similar format as had been offered during a community input meeting, for consideration by the Board. Approximately ten different drawings of possible building configurations were displayed and discussed. The most favored ideas for building options were pointed out in addition to the least liked. The site plan process timeline was reviewed. An additional community meeting for elementary school parents had been added to the meeting timeline, as well as an extra district and site committee meeting. Final Board approval had been scheduled for February. Mr. Moore arrived at 4:15 p.m. Special Meeting, November 29, 2011 Page 2
Following the explanation of all options, Mr. Haley stated positive ideas would be the focus, and from 1-3 options would emerge for the next review. Discussion ensued with regards to whether or not a two story addition was a viable option; and if it was best to improve or replace the 500 Building that had multiple structural problems. Mrs. Hooper offered to provide a cost comparison for the 500 building, replacement vs. repair; and a price comparison for a two story wing vs. a single story necessary for classroom improvements. Other major considerations were traffic circulation, building aesthetics, JROTC, outdoor kitchen serving windows, the gym areas and the main core area of the campus. Dr. Noonan stated the intent of the presentation was to provide the Board with input gained from the community, district and site meetings. With this information, the Board was asked to provide additional comments for consideration. Board members took a break from 4:23 4:42 p.m. to view the DHS site options displayed. The Douglas High School administrative team informed the Trustees the last two meetings with SKW included a staff focus group, two parents and students. Discussion surrounded incoming freshmen, staff buildings including the Commons, ventilation, adequate space for learning, and the ability to close campus if decided upon in the future. Additionally, science labs and the 500 building were a focus. The ability of students and parents to park and enter by the gym was supported to decrease access to other areas of the building during sports events. A suggestion was made to incorporate the theatre with the Commons for best use of space. Mrs. Hooper asked for any further comments from the Board. Comments included: 1) Locating the gym by the parking lot is favorable to help manage the crowd. 2) An outside food service window was desirable. 3) The current entrance is lacking in safety and aesthetics. 4) Decisions should be made with costs available for review. 5) A two story building is less desirable due to aesthetics and future problematic maintenance. 6) A two story building could replace the 500 building. 7) The Commons could be connected to the 200 wing. 8) Possible shady and slick areas in the winter should be considered. 9) Glad the staff is working well with SKW. 10) Parents should feel welcome. The office could be in front of the larger main area. 6. Nevada Growth Model of Achievement (NGMA) and Graduation Formulas Brian Frazier, Director of Assessments and Grants, presented a draft of the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate recommended by the National Governors Association (NGA). The new graduation rate would now be comparable across the state. Student measurements would begin with the cohort of students entering 9 th grade who were scheduled to graduate in four years. The goal would be to account for 100% of students and increase the graduation rate. Tracking would include categories entitled graduates, completers, and dropouts, all of which had sub categories of students. The new graduation rate formula was provided and explained. The state is currently working on an extended five year graduation rate. This would include GED recipients returning to earn an adult diploma. Difficulties were noted in continued tracking of students whose whereabouts were unknown. The draft data was broken out differently from Special Meeting, November 29, 2011 Page 3
the past, although ultimately both the graduation and dropout rate were of focus. The 5 steps in obtaining a four year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Calculation was shown. Mr. Frazier recognized site registrars for continually working to input good data for tracking purposes. Mrs. Hales stated this topic could be heard again in order that the Board might review Policy relating to this topic. Mrs. Gorrindo, Assistant Superintendent, explained that a truancy officer currently follows up on students who are absent for extended periods of time. Dr. Noonan added that student files for those who leave the country are not always requested, and therefore difficult to track. Mrs. Hales stated she would like to know more about the students transferring out in order that DCSD might retain those students. Mr. Moore agreed with the request. A Web video was shown, Hans Roslings 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes, The Joy of Stats, to assist the Board in seeing how our new growth model for data tracking will work on 2 axes. Next, Mr. Frazer presented The Nevada Growth Model. Clark County was recognized for having supplied the PowerPoint Presentation. Both large counties, Washoe and Clark were reported to have done considerable work in this area. This accountability process would improve on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) process and meet AB14, instituted in the 2009 legislative session, for grades 3-8. A question of how much growth is enough will be answered in order to have students ready to graduate without additional remediation. As a way to view progress, annual and adequate growth is defined in order that all students achieve enough growth to pass required High School Proficiency Exams (HSPE s). The four quadrants of the Growth Model were explained that supported students who began low and achieved to the level necessary, as well as those who began high and achieved, although the growth rate varied. Trustees accessed the NGMA Web site, http://ngma.doe.nv.gov/, in order that they could understand data now available offered by schools and districts across the state for comparison. 14 states were reported to be using the Colorado Growth Model, including Nevada. A break was taken from 6:15 6:25 p.m. 7. Superintendent Evaluation (For Possible Action) Dr. Noonan provided information regarding her efforts, data, and results for her annual evaluation. She began by stating a best cycle including receiving and analyzing student achievement results in relation to Strategic Planning, the superintendent contract and timing for her evaluation. Dr. Noonan s first required evaluation occurred June 2011. The NRS required an annual evaluation, and although this requirement was met in June, the best time to hold the evaluation within the education cycle, was December of each year. Dr. Noonan stated the evaluation forms currently included a rating system that might be review at another time. The process for compiling the information from all Board members could be addressed as well. The Board was informed they could take action on Dr. Noonan s performance, but were not required to do so by law at this time. Mrs. Hales stated action taken would formalize the Board s vision of Dr. Noonan s performance. Mr. Moore suggested placing the action portion of the evaluation on the December agenda to begin the new Special Meeting, November 29, 2011 Page 4
cycle. Board Discussion continued with regard to the best time to receive data, and when and how the Board might review and update the rating system. Dr. Noonan began a PowerPoint presentation. The three parts of the evaluation had been renumbered for a best approach to evaluating a superintendent. Board members further discussed timing and the need for consideration of the ratings within the evaluation format. The Strategic Plan Goals and major efforts toward the goals supporting student achievement were presented. June 2011 survey results were provided to reflect perception data. Dr. Noonan offered that the superintendent evaluation survey could be conducted in the spring or fall, and the persons participating could be adjusted. The data dashboard was evolving in order to focus on the most important information. LifeTrack senior 2011 student survey information was provided. The LifeTrack service would continue with senior tracking five years into the future. Dr. Noonan handed out a calendar reflecting the proposed cycle of district events. Mrs. Hales restated the consensus of the Board following completion of all discussion. The timing of the annual superintendent evaluation would be changed to December through an action item listed next month (December); revisions to the evaluation system would be agendized, to include ratings involving progress and efforts; and action would be taken December 13, 2011 on Dr. Noonan s evaluation, in order to begin the new cycle. Mrs. Trigg left the meeting at 7:05 p.m. 8. Closed Session At 7:10 p.m., Mr. Moore moved to recess to closed session in order to discuss matters with its management representatives pursuant to NRS 288.220(4), seconded by Mr. Green. 9. Adjournment Mr. Moore moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:39 p.m., seconded by Mrs. Chessell. Submitted by, Approved: Carolyn Moore Secretary to the Board of Trustees Clerk of the Board Note: Upon approval by the Board of Trustees in a public meeting, these minutes become the official minutes of the meeting held on the above date. Board minutes are kept on a permanent basis and are available for public review in the office of the Superintendent. Special Meeting, November 29, 2011 Page 5