Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-28-2014 Minutes Special Meeting-Work SessionDr. Charles J. Shackett, Superintendent Marjean McConnell, Deputy Superintendent 3497 North Ammon Road, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 83401  (208) 525-4400  Fax (208) 529-0104  www.d93schools.org Board of Trustees  Annette Winchester  Kip Nelson  Amy Landers  Brian McBride  Jeff Bird Bonneville Joint School District No. 93 is an Equal Opportunity Employer Special Meeting/Work Session of the Board of Trustees District Board Room May 28, 2014 11:30 AM I. Call to Order Chairperson Winchester called the meeting to order at 11: 36 a.m. II. Roll Call Those Board members in attendance were Chairperson Annette Winchester, Treasurer Amy Landers, and Trustee Brian McBride. Vice-chairperson Kip Nelson was excused. Others in attendance were Superintendent Chuck Shackett, Deputy Superintendent Marjean McConnell, Director of Human Resources Shalene French, Director of Technology Services Scott Woolstenhulme, Director of Plant Facility/Purchasing Roger Hill, Director of Curriculum and Instruction Michaelena Hix, Director of Operations Todd Hicks, Principal Ty Salsbery, Principal Craig Miller, Energy Education Specialist Don Trauntvein, Director of Secondary Special Education and Federal Programs Julian Duffey, Food Services Director Heather Plain, and Board Clerk Valerie Messick. III. Welcoming Guests and Delegations Chairperson Winchester welcomed the following Blake Marrow, David Steele, Aaron Long, Stephen Miner, Dustin McRae, Rachel Eggleston, Stephanie Gifford, Scott Straubhor, Bre Clark, SueAnn Dabell, Jamee Jolley, Karla Harris, Brooke Magleby, and Tiffany Hillman. IV. Technical Careers High School Student Council Presentation Chairperson Winchester welcomed the students from the Technical Careers High School and asked them to introduce themselves to the Board. She then asked them to present their accomplishments for the past year. Blake Marrow is Studentbody Vice-president David Steele is Studentbody President, and Aaron Long is Sargent at Arms. They do a lot of after school activities. One of the best moments was when all the programs were represented at state competitions. Every program placed. Welding fabrication got 3rd place out of eleven teams. Auto Tech got 2nd place. Auto Body took two 3rds and 2nd. The state competition was held at the College of Western Idaho in Nampa. The star testing average increased by double this year. Everyone cares about the students at the school. They are very close knit at the school. Teachers will take time to help students learn the best and keep them in gear and in check. They can go to any teacher anytime for help with any subject. It is nice to know that they are cared about. The school is top notch. Out of 13 schools doing accreditation, the Technical Careers High School scored the highest. They feel that one of the most important things is that they have a good principal like Craig Miller. He gives them good pointers about what they are supposed to say at these type of presentations. They really would like to see the school keep going. They have felt lots of support from the community. The whole community gives a lot of support. With the car show, it wasn’t the best weather but 40 cars were available for the show. One person brought 7 or 8 of his cars. They had a pretty good turn-out and they made money on the show. Dr. Shackett stated that Blake and David won the Bonneville Youth Development Extra-mile Award this year. Mrs. Landers asked the students to explain what kinds of activities they had to do at state. For welding fabrication, they give you a different project every year. They supply the material. You can design it any way you want. From start to finish, you get five hours to fabricate from scrap metal. They are also required to come up with a print for the project. This year we made a bottle jack press. In Welding, you work on a box using flat welding, overhead welding, vertical welding, and different processes. They then judge your welds. For Auto Tech they give a test and give 1 ½ to complete it. It is an AEC style test just like they were certified mechanics. They start competing the next day at 6:30 a.m. in different sections: transmissions, diagnose and repair, electrical, and hybrid. You get 24 questions to answer in 12 minutes then there is some sort of physical activity. Like diagnose and compare, they had to scan the car then figure out how to fix it. These activities test the students’ general knowledge. Chairperson asked what the students plans are for next year. Blake is planning to work for mining company in Utah and will be doing welding. David has been accepted in a special program with Caterpillar at CWI in Nampa. He will go to school in the year-long program. Then he will do a three month internship with Caterpillar. Then start work with Caterpillar as a technician. Aaron will attend BYU-I and start his generals then go on a mission. He will then return back to school for mechanical engineering. Chairperson Winchester asked the students if they had any questions for the Board or the Administration. They wondered what the Board’s favorite thing about seeing their school. Chairperson Winchester responded that seeing kids happy and engaged in learning. Mrs. Landers liked seeing the hands on work and the amazing sign hanging outside the welding department. She liked watching kids in shops building the many things that they are able to construct. She liked watching the kids build the sheds in the woodshop area. It is awesome to take a skill and turn it into something in your high school. David built a bumper for his truck for his senior project. He and another student asked if they could build bumpers in class. They had to draw up a print and complete the project. People have asked where he bought the bumper. He has responded that he made it and they want him to make something for them. You will always have people who need something taken care of if you have the skill to do it for them. Mrs. Landers stated that the fact that the public brings their cars to the students shows confidence in their skills. Dr. Shackett state that State Superintendent Tom Luna and Janet Jones candidate for State Superintendent have visited the school several times. He asked Principal Miller to read an article that was in today’s paper about the school. It is an honor to him and to the school. Mr. Miller read the article. Mrs. Landers was impressed with the interest level in the core classes because they teach towards the students’ area of focus. It was awesome to see the way they teach English or math and give assignments based on students’ interests. Mr. McBride was impressed with the focus, vision, and excitement of the students and the teachers as well. That makes it successful for both. The students agreed. The teachers want to be there and are so willing to help them. In the traditional high school they often slept through the classes because it wasn’t interesting. At this school they actually want to be at school and don’t sleep. It has made a huge difference. They are so interested in learning because they are a close community with in the school. They respond well with the teachers. The teachers know how to keep the students interested and make the projects interesting so they can build them and then write about them. The teachers have a passion for their subject area. Students have the opportunity to apply what they have learned and understand the application. Teachers take the time to write up story problems for them so they can use math in their projects. Mr. McBride asked if they would like to see their campus enlarged. They believe they need a bigger campus for additional programs but they need to keep the classes small. If it gets too big, then they can’t have the same interaction with the teachers. There are a lot of kids that don’t fit into the traditional mold. They currently have 32 full time seniors. Each one learns differently. Somehow they learn what they are supposed to because the teachers will take the time to go over the concept in different ways. Growth is good and required. They have teachers that will help and they can handle some growth. They are seeing that students want to come to their high school. This high school isn’t a place to come to slack off. It is 100% work hard and they want to succeed. They have been taught to succeed. It is not an alternative school. It is just as hard and in some aspects harder than the regular school setting. Teachers push them hard. Chairperson Winchester stated that the students are the best cheerleaders for their school. When the younger students come to the school for COW days they are excited. They need to know that they can have this option. Some people won’t go into the profession that they study at TCHS but they are taught not to be afraid to try. “You can’t hit the ball if you don’t swing” So, don’t be afraid to try. Mrs. Landers appreciates the students’ enthusiasm and it is rewarding to her to see kids that love their schools and want to be there. David would never have wanted to be Studentbody president at Bonneville. But, being Studentbody president has been enjoyable for him and helped him grow in a lot of ways. The students thanked the Board for their support. V. Items for Discussion A. Budget Hearing/Fee Hearing Information - April Burton Chairperson Winchester stated that the budget and fee hearing will be on June 11th and Mrs. Burton will contact individual Board members to have meetings with them prior to that meeting so they understand the budget. Because she is still working on the budget, she will not present at this meeting. B. Bond Survey Results - Chuck Shackett Chairperson Winchester asked Dr. Shackett to discuss information regarding the Post Bond Survey Results and the suggested direction for the District in the future. Dr. Shackett explained that the Board has seen the survey. He stated that we learned a lot from the survey. We understand that 90% of our patrons know we have an overcrowding problem. But the number that are willing to increase their taxes to solve it is in the low 40%. Patrons who are using our schools feel we are using the money wisely and the people who aren’t don’t feel that we are using the money wisely. It is a matter of perception in the community. The perception is that we are government and we don’t use the money wisely. We have used our funds wisely. It was a good response from our patrons that are actually using our school. We have to educate the community better and help them realized that we have built six elementary schools, an auditorium, gymnasium, libraries, and cafeterias over the last eight years and the tax levy has not increased. Our patrons who use the schools know that. Right now, we are looking at two different things. (1) If we move to build a new high school, we need to sit with patrons in that area and discuss how to lay out the 135 acres of land. We now have multiple entry and exit areas. We need to deal with those parents and help them help us. (2) The other factor is that Dr. Shackett is not sure the community wants a 3rd high school. Looking at the data and meeting with some patrons in a discussions about bonding and how that works with Eric Herriger from Piper Jeffery. Hopefully they understand that it is not as simple as a spreadsheet showing how much you should pay per month for a certain number of years. We have to wrap all of our debt into how we sell bonds. Through these interactions, he believes there is support for making Bonneville and Hillcrest work. We know they are overcrowded by at least 200 students. We can’t add on unless we do something to the hallways, traffic patterns, the library, commons areas, and making more space with restrooms and common area locations. We are looking at the Middleton type high school and put on our land and asking for support to do a study on how can we expand Bonneville and Hillcrest to the point where they can house 2,000 to 2,200 students. He would like to understand much that would cost for a retro fit of that magnitude. Right now we have $1.4 million in leeway in our bonding capacity. That means that we can bond for $34 million without raising taxes. That could build a 3rd middle school. If we did that, we would drop the 9th graders down. The question is how long will we be able to house our students? Is that a fix or is it a temporary band aid until we have to build a new high school? The administration met with Kurt Karst, Scott Strubarb, and Ed Daniels to discuss whether we could change Bonneville and Hillcrest to where they can hold over 2,000 students with $34 million. If that is feasible along with enough to make additions to the elementary schools, Dr. Shackett thinks that could pass. Mr. McBride wondered if we would still build a middle school. There is not enough money to build a middle school. So the trailers would need to be placed at the middle schools and get by there until we can bond again to build a $26 -$30 million middle school without raising the tax levy rate. Dr. Shackett doesn’t believe we can pass a bond unless we can do it without raising the tax levy rate. Trustee Jeff Bird arrived at 12:09 p.m. We want to do another survey using the information we get back from our architects to see if people would support making the two high schools larger. Building just a middle school is a short term solution as shown on the charts that have been handed out. We will look at whether we can afford making the changes Mr. McBride wondered if we can retro fit with students going to school. Mrs. Landers wondered if we would retro fit at the middles schools. We probably would not but would move the trailers down to the middle schools. The question is how we can use the $34 million to not go to split sessions. Split sessions is a done deal unless we can figure something out. A retro fit might take 18 months. Can we get by without split sessions for 18 months and can we figure out how to make a change within the two schools and still hold school. We might need to look at things like a four month summer and add time to the school day allowing more months during the summer to work on the internal retro fit of the schools. The bottom line is that a year from now we have to go to split sessions. That would be very expensive. There is no way around going to split session unless we can shorten the time span of creating more class space. If our architects think it is possible in within our range of $34 million then maybe we can make it happen Chairperson Winchester asked Dr. Shackett to explain the cost of split sessions. The capacity we have is $1.14 million that will allow us to bond for $34 million without raising the tax levy rate. If have to spend half of that to pay for split sessions a year from now, then we can’t bond for $34 million. It would cost at least $750,000 to go to split sessions because of the need for additional staff. We would need to double the bus fleet and drivers, our lunch personnel would need to double, we would need administrative staff at the schools from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. We can’t shut down the district office during that time. Hundreds of our classified employees would need to go to full time with benefits where they are now part time. There is a high cost with going to split sessions. If we spend that money to go to split sessions, our capacity of $1.14 million diminishes and we can’t bond. We can go to $ 4.1 million for supplemental without raising the tax levy rate but then we would have no money available for bonding. So that lead us to ask if we can create enough seats. That brought us back to the high schools to discuss whether we can change the infrastructure and get schools up to 2,000 or 2,200 in 18 months. The current infrastructure will not handle the number of students. If we could retro fit without split sessions, then we would be allowed the ability to bond for $34 million. Maybe with this possibility we could have a longer summer to allow for needed changes and not go to split sessions. We would have a huge problem at the middle schools. We would put the trailers at the middles schools and hopefully we could then bond for a middle school. This is the only way we can do it without raising taxes. Mr. McBride is not sold on the idea. The survey tells us that but that is not what he is hearing from those who he talks to. Mrs. Landers is getting the same feeling as Mr. McBride. The people are telling her they will support the high school. If you look at the graphs, you are talking to the people on graph that supported the bond. Those are not the 6300 people who are voting. The survey is 99% valid. Mr. McBride is concerned that a lot of the questions had to be put into certain categories. He is concerned about making decisions based on the one survey. Dr. Shackett agreed and he wants to charge the architects to see if we can make the retro fit changes and then if we can do it, then we will put out another survey. We won’t do anything until we get more feedback. Mr. Woolstenhulme stated that we will put out three of the best ideas and do another random sampling survey of registered voters. The survey we did last fall had 2700 that supported but it didn’t tell about 3,000 who came out and voted no and who are most likely not using our product. We want to see what people will support that is educationally sound. Mrs. McConnell stated that we don’t want to go out with vague ideas again. We want to be specific showing how the retro fit would look or how the new high school would look. We will need to have information meetings after we get the survey information back. Dr. Shackett stated that we will be on split sessions in a year from now. It will cost ¾ of a million to do that. If we put our money there, we have no bonding capacity. So, Dr. Shackett would rather put that $1.14 million into a bond to build something rather than throw it out in the wind. And next year we would have to come up with ¾ million again. That is a lot of money to do something that is not good for kids and parents won’t like but we may have to do so. If we could pull off a retro fit in 18 months and figure out how to continue to run our schools we will solve the high school problem. Then we will need to look at our bonding capacity again. It is clear that we had 2900 more people come out and vote and they were mostly outside of the parents. They are probably on fixed incomes and won’t vote in favor if we raise taxes. With those restrictions, this is our best idea. We don’t want to waste money on split sessions year after year. Mr. Woolstenhulme discussed the enrollment projections chart showing that building a 3rd middle school and dropping the 9th grade down will not solve the problem. The projections are for the kids that are in school right now. It is not projecting any outside growth. It could take care of the problem at Hillcrest through 2022. But at Bonneville it will not solve it. That is with only three grades in those schools and without the 4% growth that is occurring. This is showing kids coming from charter schools and using the November 1st counts. It won’t take care of the problem at the middle schools either because of having three grades at the middle schools. By 2019 Rocky Mountain will be beyond their capacity. Sandcreek will be ok. Looking at the graph, by 2018 Bonneville will be full and probably sooner because this is without adding the percentage for the growth we have historically seen. Maybe the desire for a middle school is the desire not to have three high schools. Mr. McBride wondered about the possibility of making Hillcrest a larger campus by annexing Sandcreek. The proximity would make it easier to get between classes. That is not necessarily so. You can’t build classrooms on that side because there is a sewer line. It is still a 10 – 15 minute walk from the farthest end of Hillcrest to the farthest end of Sandcreek. The middle section of people really get affected if we change boundaries. Mr. McBride was just wondering if we can bond for a middle school and not fix both high schools. C. Site Plan for Future High School and Middle School - Roger Hill Chairperson Winchester asked Mr. Hill to introduce the architects to the Board and discuss information regarding the site plan for the future high school and middle school as well as the feasibility of retro fitting the existing high schools. Mr. Hill introduced Mr. Kurt Karst, Scott Strubarb, and Ed Daniels. Mr. Karst stated that they want to answer one of the three questions (too big portion) brought up by the opposition. They want to hold planning and programming session with administrators to determine what exactly is needed and desired. He suggested that the planning session would be for details regarding a building plan and to make a determination of how the site would be laid out. He further suggested that we will need a similar planning session and process if we add to the high schools. We would need to accommodate an additional 1,000 students at each high school. That is approximately an additional 110,000 to 120,000 square feet of renovated additional space at each building. It will have an impact on those sites. Green spaces will be taken over as well as parking spaces. Scott has just completed a similar project in Meridian. They gutted the building down to the shell. It is a $5 million per year, 5 year project. They are also remodeling in Twin Falls. He understands what needs to happen at existing high schools to improve the plan and increase the capacity. They are adding 20 classrooms at $5.4 million. They will need to look at core pieces at the two buildings. Where the media center is and what is the classroom capacity. There are ways to repurpose schools and do it smartly. They can look at what increased capacities at the other schools would look like along with the new site would look like. We need good information from both options to present to patrons. They envision having one group study the new site and its potentials and another study Hillcrest and Bonneville and their potential. You need to go through the process to see what the retrofit would look like or the new construction would look like. They would let everyone evaluate and make a decision. You will need good information to give to patrons regarding both options so the patrons can see the process. Bonneville has crazy growth and that is different from others that have been retrofitted. Mr. McBride believes that it would have been nice to have done this before the last bond. He wondered what it would cost the District to go through this type of process. The architects will do this gratis because their success is the District’s success. It would be minimal cost because districts don’t have the means to do this up front. Scott explained about the process. They will need to evaluate how the existing space is being used and look at whether there is an opportunity to grow the campuses without taking a long time. They will need to hold a series of planning sessions. They are envisioning three or four planning sessions. One would be a 2-day initial kick off session to talk about what they have learned and need and make sure everyone is on the same page. Then have a group look at the potential new high school and middle school and in tandem have another group look at how to expand Hillcrest and Bonneville. Then after those two sessions they would assemble all the information. Then come back the next day to the group for their feedback. The process becomes 3 or 4 sessions to get thoughts about what we are learning. Everything needs to be value based. That will be one or two months’ time to come back with some good information. We need to understand what are options are for building additions before having planning sessions. This would give the Board a background to answer questions with good data regarding the need and how to distribute flow around the campus. It would be hard to increase the size of the hallways. They will need to look at the original structure. The possibilities are endless, maybe construct standalone buildings and come back in and repurpose spaces like the library and cafeteria for teaching space. For the amount the District is talking about, the architects think it could be successful. Mrs. Landers wondered if it is possible to build up on Hillcrest. Codes have become more restrictive so it is hard to say at this time. Since it is a pre-engineered metal building that may not work as well. With this process, you engage patrons and they are on board and can offer positive reinforcement because people in the community also have answers. People are invested in the process. Mrs. Winchester wondered how many people would need to be involved. There would need to be about 20-30 people including District representatives, students, parents, nay sayers, principals, etc. Mrs. Landers wondered how soon information could be given to the Board. The process could happen in 3-4 meetings. There was concern that school is out of session and people won’t come to the table. Mrs. McConnell wondered how long it would take to let the District leadership know if it is feasible to add on to the existing high schools. That would take a couple of weeks. The first step is to determine if the additions are possible. Mr. McBride believes that we need to see if additions are feasible option. If it is not, our other options are split sessions or we bond. He wondered if numbers could be available in two weeks. We could have numbers but, we need to have people involved. The Board needs to know what the potentials are and the costs. The team has the experience to say what you will need and that could happen in a couple of weeks. Then start the planning process for both ideas. They will break it all down and give comparative data for new construction and retrofitting. The Board wants to know what the numbers would be with the contingencies. The numbers the District had for the bond were good. Middleton was an anomaly. It was bid right after the market crashed and they got a good deal. Numbers for Twin Falls are in sync with what Bonneville had in the bond. The architects are not seeing a lot of creep in construction costs. They will give the Board a total project cost. There is about a 3% annual inflation so it is pretty level now. There will be regional differences in costs and that could be significant. Southeastern Idaho is a fairly stable market right now. During the downturn there was a lack of bidders. There were limited pools of companies bidding. If the competition isn’t there companies will bid what they want. Chairperson Winchester asked what firm the gentlemen represented. They are with Hummell Architects from Boise. Kurt is from Idaho Falls. The Board agreed to move forward on the process. Chairperson Winchester thanked Mr. Hill for arranging this meeting with the architects. D. Policy 2365 Testing and Assessment - Scott Woolstenhulme Chairperson Winchester asked Mr. Woolstenhulme to discuss information regarding policy #2365 Testing and Assessment. Mr. Woolstenhulme stated that there was a lot of insightful comment at the last Board Meeting. Public comment was centered on the adoption of the math curriculum and the Assessment policy. Different patrons were asking the Board to do certain things that legally it can’t do. Mr. Woolstenhulme wanted to do a quick rundown of the purpose for the policy and information on what we can and can’t do in the context for local control from consultation Doug Nelson the District’s attorney. Local control is granted from the state. The United States Constitution never mentions education. The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states that any authority not given to the Federal Government in the United States Constitution is reserved to the states. That is where public education falls. The Idaho Constitution grants all the supervision of public schools to the State Board of Education. From there, the State Board delegates certain authority to local school boards. Idaho Code 33-512 grants authority to boards of trustees in 17 areas. Among other things the boards are to govern incompliance with State Board rule and legislation. So, we cannot enact policies that are contrary to State Board rule or to State law. Chairperson Winchester wondered who makes the rules that the State Board follows. The legislature makes State laws and the State Board makes the rules and both of those govern the school district. Mrs. McConnell stated that some things appear in both venues. Sometimes things come before the legislature but are referred to the State Board rather than have it be placed in Idaho Code. The legislature can direct the State Board to draft specific rules. If we draft a policy that is in conflict with State law or State Board rules it is null and void. High school graduation requirements is one of the simpler ways to look at this. We can have more graduation requirements. But we must follow their rules as a minimum. Idaho Code 33-116 states that all school districts in the state of Idaho are under the supervision and control of the State Board. Idaho Code 33-506 and 33-512 both require that the Board govern our school district in compliance with state law and State Board rules. One of those State Board rules states that all students in the state’s public schools in grades K-12 are required to participate in the comprehensive assessment program that is required by the State Board of Education. This rule has been in effect since 2005. It goes all the way back to the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the ISAT. It has never been an issue. In his 15 years as a high school teacher, as a principal, and at the District level, this is the first year Mr. Woolstenhulme has seen parents request to opt- out of state required testing. Mr. Woolstenhulme wants to make three changes to the current policy #2365. (1) Pursuant to the State Board rule, public school students are required to participate in the State mandated testing and we don’t have the authority to allow them to opt-out. That statement is missing from our current policy and needs to be added. (2) Students attending District schools will also be required to participate in school and District level testing. We are extending the same requirement to participate to our District testing. That is not in State Board rule. We have District assessments that are not mandated by the State. Our District testing is critical for us to evaluate our programs, curriculum, and our students’ progress. (3) Students on IEPs have accommodations but are also required to participate in testing. They are not exempted from the testing as stated in our current policy. Even the most severe students are given an alternative assessment. Mr. Bird wondered what the purpose of having a policy with regard to the State Board rule if we have no jurisdiction over it and it is mandated by the State. If we don’t have a policy that mirrors the State Board rules, there is a gap. If we have a District policy that doesn’t say anything about opting out, parents will wonder why they can’t do it. So, our policy should mirror the State Board rules as closely as possible. Again, our Graduation Requirements policy is a good example. It mirrors the State’s requirements but, we have added to them. We are receiving requests to opt-out of more than just the SBAC Assessment at this point. Mr. Woolstenhulme went over some of the opt-out requests that do not want children to participate in any computerized formative or summative SBAC test or any other standardized test over any subject at the end of the school year. Our end-of-course assessments will become standardized and our Star Assessments are standardized tests that we use to evaluate our programs and our student progress. Renaissance Learning makes the Star Testing. We have had this test in the District for three years. It has been invaluable to our teachers and to the District Administration so we can evaluate our programs, monitor our students’ progress, and make decisions regarding student learning. These opt- out forms that we are receiving are on the internet and parents are checking off what they wish to opt-out of. We have to have policy to direct our administrators how to handle these opt-out forms. Mrs. Landers wondered what the opt-on forms were for this year. The first round was specific to the Smarter Balanced Test. We weren’t so concerned because this year it was a field test. These other forms have been put out there by groups advocating for parents rights and against the common core. They have been put out there for people to use and directed them to turn them into their schools. Mr. McBride wondered if there similar opt-out requests statewide. Prior to this year Mr. Woolstenhulme hasn’t heard of parents opting out of testing. It was new to districts around. Some drew a hard line. We wanted to understand what we needed to do. But we have realized that we need to have direction. Mr. Woolstenhulme talked about a future S-Data policy that is required by State law this year and we will need to develop a policy that will guide us in how we will share student data with online providers. This something that we are required to comply with. There is no provision to be able to opt individual students out. Mrs. Landers wondered what type of data would be shared. Demographic data: birthdates, unique identifier, name, race, gender, age, dated entered the district and the school. We do not collect information with regard to Social Security Numbers, religion, or medically. If a student is on an IEP we report tenants of the IEP: it could include how they qualify for the IEP and that may include some medical information. We don’t report parents’ names to the State. Attendance file that reports the classes the student is taking and their grade. We are reporting State Reportable Discipline incidents. This is giving us heartache because we are required to report safe and drug free school information to the State. Before it was reported in aggregate but now it is reported on an individual student basis. Mrs. Landers wondered why individual information. If you trust them, they are trying to simplify the data reporting process. Mr. Woolstenhulme does trust them on this one. He wishes that we were still reporting in aggregate. We have had conversations with the state and our attorney. The bottom line is that they have the authority to request the information and because they are the governing entity they have rights to the information. That is specific to state reportable offenses. For example cheating would not be reported. Tobacco, drug, harassment, bullying, weapons, insubordination, any suspension or expulsion will be reported. Mr. McBride wondered if that is similar for teachers. For teachers we report their demographic information, their class assignments, for classified employees we report the work assignments, evaluation information that also gives us heartache, and attendance. Chairperson Winchester asked what the State is doing with the information. They put it into School Net and that allows them to bring in state assessment scores for students so teachers can see that information. She then asked who can access that data. Teacher evaluations are not public information. Teachers can only see student information for those in their classroom. There are school board roles in School Net. We haven’t assigned those out but we could if the Board would like. Discipline information is not flowing with the students. It is going up to the safe and drug free schools report but we aren’t seeing it come across to the classroom teacher. Mr. McBride wondered what the state is doing with that information. They are reporting to the Federal Government in the overall report they are required to submit for Safe and Drug Free School funding. There is nothing individually identifiable with that report. The state is providing the information back to the schools and using it to populate their reports to the federal government. So we are reporting information by individual student instead of aggregate information for attendance. Mr. McBride wondered what the implications would be for the student if they miss the test. There is no provision to opt individual students out. What is the penalty if schools don’t have 95% participation? This year we have a waiver from accountability because it was a field test. Next year the accountability measures will come back. Schools will lose Star Rating and will be thrown into accountability measures as far as doing school improvement plans and having them reviewed by the state and their teams coming into the schools. That happens at the school level. At the individual student level, there is not a lot of consequence other that the requirement that students will need to pass the state test to graduate. We are not recommending sanctions for parents who choose not to test in the policy. If parents excuse the students from testing, they will be required to take their kids out of school because no alternative activities will be made available. Mrs. Landers wondered what would happen with regard to graduation. The Board would need to decide whether to allow the alternate graduation route for those students. That route does require them to participate in some type of assessment. It would be substituting one test for another. That is something in the future the Board will need to decide. The alternate route is for students who cannot pass the test not those who won’t test. The Board agreed that the request for changes in the policy made sense. Mr. McBride wondered if the new Superintendent Public Instruction might help change the test. There is a lot of resistance to the Common Core. Chairperson Winchester stated that the two people running for this position support the standards but have concerns with the SBAC and she hopes the new Superintendent will help us change the test. Mrs. Hix informed the Board that the SAT is aligned to common core. The SBAC gives our kids the opportunity to take that kind of test before taking a test to get into college. Strategies taught at BYU-I are those in the Common Core standards. She doesn’t understand the push back on the standards. Practice is really changing and is based on 20 years of research with writing where they have to cite evidence. She believes that if we don’t support the common core, our kids will be left behind. Mr. McBride wondered about how some states that are opting out of common core are able to do that. That is through their legislators. He wondered what they are doing. Indiana wrote their own using the common core and added a few pieces to it. Utah is doing their own test. Minnesota didn’t adopt the common core because their standards were already that high. Most states are opting out of the testing not the standards. Mrs. McConnell reminded those in attendance that there still has to be a test. The states are developing their own test. Utah’s test looks a lot like the SBAC. Chairperson Winchester stated that as a school board they we understand how some of our parents feel but, we need to follow the law. She asked those in attendance to go talk to their legislators. Mr. Woolstenhulme stated that if the board doesn’t want to adopt the policy, it will put the administration in an awkward position. They can’t allow kids to opt out by law and the Board doesn’t have the authority not to follow state law. Chairperson Winchester reiterated that for now, we don’t have a choice. Chairperson Winchester moved the Board Training item after executive session and declared a 5 minute recess prior to recessing into Executive Session. VI. Executive Session Chairperson Winchester stated that the Board will enter into Executive Session pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-2345 (1)(b) To consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student. The Executive Session will be closed to the public as permitted by law. She then asked for a motion to enter into executive session for the reason stated MOTION: Brian McBride made the motion to move into executive session for the reason stated. Amy Landers seconded. The roll call vote was: Jeff Bird - yes Amy Landers - yes Brian McBride - yes Kip Nelson – not present Annette Winchester - yes VII. Motions from Executive Session Chairperson Winchester asked if there would be any motions from executive session. MOTION: Jeff Bird made the motion to hire Tina Orme to be principal at Rimrock Elementary and to transfer Principal Oliver Roberts to Woodland Hills Elementary, Principal Brady Johnson to Iona Elementary, and Principal Dan Page to Ucon Elementary. Amy Landers seconded. The vote was 4 in favor with 0 opposed and 0 abstentions. Motion passed. Mr. Bird left the meeting at 2:04 p.m. VIII. Board Training Board Self Evaluation - Annette Winchester Chairperson Winchester began the discussion regarding the Board’s Self-Assessment. She asked for copies of the member’s self-evaluation. There was discussion regarding the need for training on Roberts Rules of Order and Parliamentary Procedure. The State will pay $2000 to districts for training. There was a question regarding whether the Board can use the money for private providers. We should have local attorneys come to talk to Board about governance. If the Board wants training from ISBA, we need to pick a package before August 1st. Chairperson Winchester stated that the Board will discuss the self-assessment at the retreat. There was discussion about having training on Board and community relations. There was discussion regarding the possibility of hiring a PR person in the future. Chairperson Winchester’s priority is to take care of the kids. There was discussion regarding the need to communicate better with patrons. The consensus was that we could use a PR person for the bond. There was also discussion regarding how to fund that kind of position. Community meetings with the architects will be beneficial. Chairperson Winchester reminded Board Members of the upcoming Graduation Exercises, District Picnic, and Board Retreat. She then asked if any Board member would like to place any agenda items on an upcoming meeting. IX. Call for Agenda Items for Upcoming Meetings A. BHS Seniors Graduation - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 B. HHS Seniors Graduation - Wednesday June 4, 2014 C. District Picnic - Thursday, June 5, 2014 - Bonneville High School Lunch Room - 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. D. LHS Seniors Graduation - Thursday, June 5, 2014 - 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. at Hillcrest E. TCHS and BOHS Seniors Graduation - Thursday, June 5, 2014 - 7:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. - at Rocky Mountain Middle School F. Regular Meeting (Budget/Fee Hearing) - Wednesday, June 11, 2014 - 7:00 p.m. G. Board Retreat – Tuesday, June 24, 2014 TCHS Multipurpose Room – 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. H. Work Session – Wednesday, June 25, 2014 District Board Room – 1130 a.m. – 2:30 p.m. The work session will be changed to an information meeting with regard to common core and assessment. It will be moved to 7:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. There will be one spokesperson in behalf of those opposing the testing and the common core. X. Adjournment Chairperson Winchester then asked for a motion to adjourn at 3:16 p.m. MOTION: Brian McBride made the motion to adjourn. Amy Landers seconded. The vote was 3 in favor with 0 opposed and 0 abstentions Motion passed. APPROVED: __________________________ Chairperson ATTESTED: __________________________ Clerk Date: ___________________