SE Illinois News

Community Unit School District 200 Board of Education met Oct. 25.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

The Committee of the Whole meeting for the month of October of the Board of Education of Community Unit School District 200, DuPage County, Illinois, was called to order at the School Service Center, 130 W Park Ave, Wheaton, IL by Board President Rob Hanlon, on Wednesday, October 25, 2023, at 7:00 PM.

ROLL CALL

Upon the roll being called, the following were present:

Board Members: Mr. Rob Hanlon

Ms. Julie Kulovits

Mr. Dave Long

Ms. Angela Blatner

Mr. Erik Hjerpe

Absent: Mr. Brad Paulsen

Mr. John Rutledge

Also in Attendance: Dr. Jeff Schuler, Superintendent

Mr. Matt Biscan

Ms. Erica Loiacono

Ms. Melissa Murphy

Dr. Brian O’Keeffe

Dr. Chris Silagi

Mr. Jason Spencer

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Board Member Blatner led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP SETTING

MOTION

Member Long moved, Member Kulovits seconded to suspend the rules and adjourn to a workshop setting. Upon a roll call vote being taken the vote was: AYE 5, NAY 0. The motion carried 5-0.

Instruction

Vision 2026 Dashboard Metrics and Illinois School Report Card

In 2022, the Board of Education adopted a strategic plan titled, Vision 2026. The Vision 2026 strategic plan has two broad categories for goals - Academic Excellence and Operational Excellence. Underneath each goal, there are six strategies. To measure the progress of Vision 2026 strategies the district developed a dashboard. The dashboard includes metrics aligned with the Vision 2026 strategic plan. Yearly, the academic excellence metrics are updated and presented to the Board of Education.

Ms. Melissa Murphy, Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services facilitated a discussion of key metrics included on the dashboard. This conversation focused on areas of success and areas of focus for 2023-24. Additionally, key components of the Illinois State Report Card were reviewed.

The District Dashboard and Illinois School Report Card presentation was attached to the Board report. The six key areas highlighted in the discussion included information on the following:

● K-1 Reading

● Primary Behavior

● Middle School - Reading/ELA and Math

● High School - Math and English Proficiency

● High School - Advanced Coursework

● Illinois School Report Card

There was additional information/comments on the following:

● FastBridge Reading - there are two types of assessments in the FastBridge Suite 

o earlyReading (K-1 students)

o aReading (Gr 1-8 - *1st grade in the spring only)

● FastBridge Reading results (% of students at or above 50%) - 2022, 2023, 2026 Goal 

o Last year was the first year D200 students took earlyReading - so baseline data 

o Would like to see the K-1 results higher

● Reading FastBridge (% at or above 50% by Subgroup)

o All, Low Income, IEP, ML, White, Hispanic, Asian, Black, Two or More

● K-1 Early Reading Achievement Deeper Dive

o Early Reading assessment is a 1:1 assessment that assesses foundational skills 

o There are 13 different subtests

o Each testing session (fall, winter, spring) contains different assessment probes that reflect expectations for the year.

o Assessments determined by developmental stages of reading

o Assessments are given in a timed setting and students have one minute for each assessment for each of the components

o 1st-grade students are administered both the aReading and earlyReading assessments in the spring

o aReading is a broader assessment (includes reading passages and comprehension in addition to foundational skills).

o Spring 2022 aReading results - 56% at or above 50% (secure with grade-level information); 71% scored in the Tier I range (learn core curriculum without additional interventions).

o The Science of Reading - includes language comprehension and word recognition; earlyReading assessment is only word recognition components and looking to see automaticity; aReading includes language skills applied to reading

o Growth over time and developing those foundational and language skills - both are important.

● 2022-23 Grade 2 Results

o Focus on Gr 2 last year after reviewing fall data - 71% of students scored in the Tier I range.

o Spring 2023 aReading results - 79% in the Tier I range

o A strong focus on shoring up phonics skills for 2nd Gr students last year

● 2023-24 Primary Reading Rocus

o The main lever for addressing K-2 reading needs is Tier I instruction

o Tier I instruction will be strengthened with Bookworms, which addresses both grade level and targeted foundational skills

o All students are assessed every 3-6 weeks to measure progress and adjust instructional needs

o Looking for mastery of skills, but not in a timed setting.

● Primary Behavior - We have seen an increase in behaviors in the K-1 grades post-pandemic. There is a focus on the behavioral needs:

o Early Recognition of Behavior Impact

o Behavior Wellness Strand of SEL Framework

o Behavior and Learning are Integrated

● Prior to Our Students Becoming Kindergarteners

o Early Childhood Programming - Jefferson ECC; Early Learning Collaborative (hold 100 preschool slots and host at different sites for at-risk students)

o Reduced Rate Access to Jefferson - getting more students in the program if the ELC slots are filled and on a waitlist

o ASQ Parent Screening Assessment Tool - screens for potential significant rises in behavior

o Camp Kinder - designed for students who have not had any preschool experience; hosted 80 students this year at the week-long camp

● Training for District 200 Staff

o Full Day Training for Behavioral Leadership Teams at all EC-5 Schools

o Trained all D200 EC-5 Staff on Tier I Behavioral Classroom Practices

o Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) Training

o Specific Training for Individual Students

● Response, Intervention and Support

o High Expectations for Classroom Management and Student Behavior

o Significant Disruption Protocol

o Behavior Intervention Plans - less intensive to significant for individual students

o Progressive Student Discipline

o Parent Collaboration

o Allocated Behavioral Support

o Increased Instructional Special Education Programming - students needing more intensive services; identifying the supports to go in place

● FastBridge Growth

o Measures growth from fall to winter and from fall to spring; first time being reported on the dashboard

o Dashboard metric reports the % of students making typical or aggressive growth from fall to spring

o Based on FastBridge research, looking for at least 60% of students meeting growth targets

● Percentage of Students Meeting Reading Growth Targets

o K-1, 2-5, 6-8, All

o Increased focus on primary early reading - a big area of focus for this year

● FastBridge Reading Growth by Subgroup

o All, Low Income, IEP, ML, White, Hispanic, Asian, Black, Two or More

o Subgroups are identified and reported by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE)

o The variance in growth for some of the priority subgroups stands out

● 2022 and 2023 Dashboard - Reading Achievement (FastBridge)

o Two additional Metrics will be filled in - Early Reading Achievement (K-1) and Students Meeting Targeted Reading Growth (FastBridge Early Reading (K-1)/Adaptive Reading (2-8) Growth

● Illinois Assessment of Readiness (IAR)

o Given once a year to all students in grades 3-8; results include performance from Reading and Writing test items

o Will focus on Middle School

● ELA IAR: % of students Meet/Exceeds (2022 and 2023)

o Something to celebrate - the hard work/achievement of the MS level; significant increase in our MS student results (from 41% to 64%)

● 2022-23 Focus: Middle School Writing

o Last year’s analysis resulted in a strong focus on the writing portion of IAR; 27% of grades 6-8 students met or exceeded on the writing portion of the assessment in 2022

o This was an area of focus for 22-23 and 64% of middle school students met or exceeded on the writing portion of assessment in 2023.

o The reading and the writing scores matched; huge celebrations for the teams and their hard work

● 2022 and 2023 Dashboard - ELA for Gr 3-5 and 6-8 (IAR)

o ELA Achievement for Gr 3-5 > from 48% to 56%

o ELA Achievement for Gr 6-8 > from 41% to 64%

● Dashboard Metrics: K-8 Math

o Early Math Achievement (K-1): FastBridge (New for 2023)

o Math Achievement (2-5): FastBridge

o Math Achievement (6-8): FastBridge

o Students Meeting Targeted Growth (K-8): FastBridge (New for 2023)

o Math Achievement (3-5): IAR

o Math Achievement (6-8): IAR

● Math FastBridge: % At or Above 50% (2022, 2023, 2026 Goal)

o More consistency in the results; a nice uptick in the MS level (from 61% to 64%)

● Percentage of Students Meeting Growth Targets (K-1, 2-5, 6-8, All)

o Closer to the 60% target for both Elementary and MS

● Math FastBridge: Growth by Subgroup (K-8)

o All, Low Income, IEP, ML, White, Hispanic, Asian, Black, Two or More o There is not much discrepancy between some of those priority subgroups

● 2022 and 2023 Dashboard - Math Achievement (FastBridge)

o Two additional Metrics will be filled in - Early Math Achievement (K-1) and Students Meeting Targeted Math Growth (FastBridge Early Math (K-1)/Adaptive Math (2-8) Growth

● Illinois Assessment of Readiness (IAR)

o Given once a year to all students in grades 3-8; results include test items that range in complexity; there are more complex items than FastBridge on the IAR

o Illustrative Math (IM) is well aligned to IAR

● Math IAR: % of students Meet/Exceeds (2022 and 2023)

o Nice increase for MS (from 37% to 41%)

o Why an increase at MS level and not Elementary level - MS were engaged in a pilot and then spent the rest of the year using IM materials; majority of MS teachers were involved in that pilot; MS math teachers have content area expertise and teach the same lesson multiple times a day in one content area; expecting to see more accelerated achievement and growth in Elementary this year.

● 2022 and 2023 Dashboard - Math for Gr 3-5 and 6-8 (IAR)

o Math Achievement for Gr 3-5 > from 53% to 52%

o Math Achievement for Gr 6-8 > from 37% to 41%

● High School Metric - Advanced Coursework (Graduates that earn a “C” or higher in advanced coursework and/or earn an Industry-Recognized Credential)

o Advanced Placement (AP) - we offer 22 AP courses

o Dual Credit - have increased the number of dual credit courses we offer to 15 (6 were added this year); recognized our partners at TCD who worked hard with COD so that many of the TCD courses also offer Dual Credit

o Industry Recognized Credentials - D200 students can earn this through TCD

● Advanced Coursework - Class of 2022 and 2023 by Subgroup

o All, Low Income, IEP, ML, Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, Two or More o Increased by 2% from 2022 to 2023

● Math and English Proficiency - the College and Career Readiness Indicator set by ISBE measures the % of seniors that meet proficiency targets for English and Math through an exam score or course grade.

o Course options (“C” or higher) - AP, Dual Credit, Transitional, Algebra II (for math) 

o Exam options (minimum score requirements*) - ACT, SAT, AP

o *For math - students must also be enrolled in a 4th year of math

● Math Proficiency - Class of 2022 and 2023 by Subgroup

o All, Low Income, IEP, ML, Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, Two or More 

o Increased from 69% to 80%; a lot of work put into this specifically with Algebra II

● ELA Proficiency - Class of 2022 and 2023 by Subgroup

o All, Low Income, IEP, ML, Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, Two or More

o Did see a decline (from 55% to 51%)

o This is an area of focus for the year; noted the options for English are not as robust as they are for math, so working with less criteria for students to meet that proficiency; working on building those opportunities for our students

o Decrease due to SAT results - the students were freshmen during the pandemic; SAT results are better from last year; having conversations with HS teams on focusing in on success for SAT.

● 2022 and 2023 Dashboard - Metrics for HS

o Graduation Rate - holding steady at 95%

o Freshman on Track - holding steady in the 97% range

o PSAT to SAT Growth - holding steady at 69%

o Students Completing Advanced Coursework - increase from 73% to 75%

o High School ELA Proficiency - decrease from 55% to 51%

o High School Math Proficiency - increase from 69% to 80% (met and exceeded the Vision 2026 target)

● IAR Growth Percentile - growth measured by Mean Student Growth Percentile (Mean SGP)

o Included on the IL State Report Card

o Looking at students progress compared to peers who started at the same year or the same exact score the year prior

o Progress levels - Excellent, Above Average, Average, Room for Improvement, Cause for Concern

● IAR ELA Growth (2019, 2021, 2022)

o 63% for 2022 - Excellent level; excited by this increase (from 52% in 2021) Open Session Minutes – October 25, 2023 Page 5

● IAR Math Growth (2019, 2021, 2022)

o 50% for 2022 - Average level; holding steady from 2021; want to see more growth; recognize during the first year of implementation - holding steady is notable, as it was a big lift for staff.

● Annual Summative Designations - schools receive this on the Illinois Report Card annually.

o The designation is based on the school’s overall data for all of the accountability indicators, as well as the data for the individual student groups.

o A school in school improvement status remains in status for four years, regardless of changes to its annual summative designation during those years to encourage sustainability of progress.

● Summative Designations

o Exemplary, Commendable, Targeted, Comprehensive

● ISBE - How the Summative Designation comes together

o Multiple indicators that are reported and calculated together, including Academic Indicators and School Quality & Student Success Indicators

o The same metrics are looked at for Elementary and Middle School and High School has a few different components

● CUSD 200 Summative Designations for 2023-24

o Exemplary > Wheaton North, Emerson, Washington, Wiesbrook

o Commendable > Wheaton Warrenville South, Edison, Franklin, Hubble, Monroe, Bower, Johnson, Hawthorne, Lincoln, Longfellow, Lowell, Madison, Pleasant Hill, Sandburg, Whittier

o Targeted Support > No CUSD 200 Schools

o Comprehensive Support > No CUSD 200 Schools

● Important element of the growth targets - one of the major school rankings groups (GreatSchools) that sits behind all of the real estate sites uses the growth scores from the school report cards. As a result, D200 elementary school ratings have jumped significantly.

● Summary of the major areas of focus after reflecting on the data this year:

o Primary Reading

o English Proficiency at the HS level

o Continuing the work at the MS level - Writing Work and Math Implementation

There were questions and/or additional discussion on the following:

● FastBridge scores and national percentiles - just for those schools/districts using FastBridge; this is prevalent and is a very large sample.

● The components of a skilled reader are assessed in FastBridge and those components assessed in aReading (more comprehensive).

● ELA IAR Performance by Proficiency Level (Gr 3-5) - ideally would like to see levels 1 and 2 getting smaller.

● To meet or exceed on IAR, have to score on level 4 or 5. In some states when that test was first introduced (PARCC), a level 3 was also considered meeting standards. Made a concerted effort to intervene in the classroom with those students that fell in the 30-49% on their instruction - the shift meaning the instruction the students are receiving in the classroom is meeting their needs. We still have work to do with our tiered interventions.

● For students moving from level 3 to 4 - means tier I is strong and meeting student needs.

● ELA IAR - Grade 8 > impressive, the writing drove the increase in levels 4 and 5.

● Studied the writing results specifically by grade level and saw a big increase in how students performed cohort-wise (from 6th to 7th grade and from 7th to 8th grade). While the current 8th graders did start higher, they maintained and increased as well.

● Math proficiency at the HS level - increase somewhat driven by SAT, but mostly by the % of students passing Algebra II, and an increase in students who passed Transitional Math.

● A focused effort by our teams to identify students who needed to pass Algebra II.

● Clarification on “credit recovery” - when a student has received a “D” or an “F” in a course and has to retake the entire course or core components of the course they failed to earn the credit. Academic Interventionists that were supported with ESSER III dollars have made a difference, and have served as the key point people in doing the credit recovery. WN and WWS also found additional ways to help students do credit recovery (either over the winter or in June). This is in no way a lessening of standards those students achieve. Focus on redoing parts of the course they need to master the standards.

● Does the District have the resources needed to target the three areas of focus for the year or are there additional resources needed to do the work? Believe we have the high-quality instructional materials, investing in the MS middle coaches is critical, and support at the HS to do that work.

● What are the big-picture wins? Proud of the work our staff and students have done. MS - ELA and Math, Elementary ELA did increase, HS Math Proficiency was a huge success, Advanced Coursework increased, Graduation Rate and Freshman on Track remained a strong result. Also, growth is huge, and have more schools that are exemplary than ever before.

● Do we have enough history on the IAR results translating to a change in the CCRI proficiency? As a predictor, it should. If students are successful in IAR, they are reading at a high level. As that cohort moves forward, they have the skills to be successful on a similar test.

● ELA proficiency and the variation among subgroups - how to see gains more universally. Teachers work really hard in English and Math areas at creating and structuring questions the way they are seen in the SAT exam so they become familiar with the structure.

● As you see results coming up through the MS, that will position students to access high-level coursework as they move into HS or college.

● FastBridge results as it relates to Vision 2026 targets - we need more data to determine if we still believe those targets are achievable or if those goals are at risk. We set an ambitious goal because we have high expectations; will have another set of data in the winter and in the spring. After that data is received, there will be a conversation with the administrative team.

● The fall data suggests the health of Tier I is in a good place, especially at the Elementary level. Would like to see a second year of data that focused effort around math and new curriculum with the ELA piece coming in.

● Specialists + Classroom Ratios for 2023-24 > for each school, the number of:

o ML (multilingual) - support staff can be in the classroom or out of the classroom, supporting individual students, groups of students, or co-teaching with a classroom teacher

o Reading - the number of reaching coaches and/or reading teachers/interventionists; can work with individual students or groups of students or coaching, and/or in the classroom

o Math - coaches and interventionists

o PACE - teachers at each school

o Class Sections - how many general education class sections we have

o Sections + Specialists - total number of staff

o Students - student enrollment

o Ratio - ratio of certified staff to students (not counting special education ratio)

● The specialists can work with students whether or not they have an individual special education plan or not.

● Ratios - schools that have a high ML demographic have a lower total ratio due to the increased support. When you look at supporting classrooms, it is not just a class-size discussion, but a class-size discussion in addition to how we support classroom teachers, and how do we support individual students?

● There has been significant growth from 2019 to 2022 and getting the supports in place, centralizing them, and have seen some great improvements.

● Looking at the ratios pre-pandemic vs. current - the majority of the ratios are either at or below where they were in 2019.

● ML students and those that are considered newcomers, those considered a level one or two from the ACCESS test - that is an area we are closely watching, have seen a lot of increases in those numbers.

● Do we have enough support in the math area based on the data which is more sluggish than ELA? Does this have anything to do with the elementary curriculum? It was/is a large lift for teachers, and will see more acceleration after the first year. MS is using the same curriculum. There is no concern about what was selected, just a large lift. The staff is getting more comfortable. Is there additional math support needed at the Elementary level?

● Transitional Math and English at the HS level - D200 currently has a Transitional Math class and the Board will be presented with a Transitional English class for consideration in November. These courses are taken in the district and if students take them and earn a passing grade, they can automatically be enrolled into postsecondary education without having to take a remedial course or a math placement exam, and they automatically enter into credit-bearing coursework. These can only be developed with a local community college (so developed with COD). This is a path in a student’s senior year.

● Increase in Instructional Special Ed programming - are those scores reflected in the data? Do the students take assessments separately? Students will be taking the alternative DLM State assessment (alternative to IAR). If a student meets that profile to take that assessment, they are not taking the FastBridge and are not included in the IAR data shown.

● Do we track change in performance against the DLM and do we have goals set against that? A small percentage of our students take that assessment and also factor in students that are in an outplaced setting as well. We have not set goals for the DLM in the past.

● Is the increase in instructional classrooms - solely for behavioral social emotional needs or is it also academic? The increase in programming has been a combination.

● PSAT to SAT growth - two reportable subgroups (Black and Hispanic) that seem significant. Are there any actions we should take and how do we interpret them? Continue to talk to teams about priority subgroups and the disproportionality to some other subgroups, about strong Tier I instruction (the biggest lever to make sure our students are all successful). The Hispanic subgroup has a lot of students that also fall into the ML subgroup as well. There is a lot of conversation about scaffolds and supports that are specific to ML learners, especially in math. This is also part of the SIPs (school improvement plans). Another key component is to look at student growth in the classroom assessments.

● Would there be interest from the parent and student population if the District could offer SAT/ACT prep coursework for those who may be low income or on free/reduced lunch or for students who are identified by a counselor?

● Data shows there is a gap and moving in the wrong direction in this last data set. Is there another layer we need to go to?

● Clarification - Tier I and addressing what is happening in the classroom - talking about fundamentally supporting the needs of the students, not doing the same thing as always. Pointing out where there is some discrepancy and what we can do to change that trend.

● Change in SAT testing coming and could negatively impact those kids who haven’t had some of the higher-level courses.

Initial Community Engagement Update

In an effort to determine the priorities of our residents, District 200 has taken active steps since August to engage the community and solicit feedback regarding a series of facility improvement needs identified at three of our middle schools. During the initial phase of this process, we developed messaging, recruited a community-based committee to lead these efforts, engaged key influencers, coordinated two discussions with the Community Leadership Team, held four community engagement sessions (one virtually) to discuss the district’s successes, opportunities for improvement, and obstacles ahead, and conducted a scientific phone survey on what improvements community members would like to see to their schools and how they would like to fund those improvements. In total, we have received feedback from 700 members of the community.

Dr. Schuler and the administrative team reviewed the feedback from the first phase of the engagement process and previewed the next steps as we prepare to bring a final community engagement report to the Board of Education and community on December 13th. This Community Engagement Report included information on the following:

● Initial Community Engagement Report

o Messaging

o Menu Survey

o Community Leadership Team

o Public Engagement

o Initial Phase Analysis

o Potential Individual Projects

o Potential Funding Levels

o Developing Options for the Final Phase

● Middle School Facilities Needs - Potential Individual Projects and Funding Levels Ranking Form (this was given at every one of the sessions)

● CUSD 200 Phone Survey Results (from the scientific phone survey conducted in October)

● CUSD 200 Feedback Form Summary - Community Engagement (from in-person or virtual community engagement sessions)

● CUSD 200 Feedback Form Summary - Community Leadership Team (from the team that has come together at the end of last year and this year)

There was additional information/comments on the following:

● A reminder to the board of where we are in the engagement process. The report tonight is an interim report and is intended to provide a temperature check of where things are and the final steps to come. The final engagement report will come to the board in December.

● Last spring after reviewing some concept drawings for each of the three middle schools, the board asked the team to take a pause on any of the concept designs and embark on the engagement process.

● The elements of engagement the team has done on their own and aspects of engagement that a partner provided help.

● Since August, the district refined and developed some messaging that was used in the presentations, recruited a community-based committee to serve as informed participants, held four community engagement sessions with one of those being virtual to provide information and get some feedback, and conducted a scientific phone survey on what improvements the community would like to see in the schools and how they would like to fund those improvements.

● Developed a menu of individual project options for ten different components or buckets or work the district wants to improve. The items included, in most cases, moved across all three of the middle schools.

● In total, we have received feedback from 700 members of the community - including members of the community leadership team, members of the community who engaged in one of the four sessions, and those who engaged through the scientific phone survey.

● The messaging mirrored the introductory slides to the presentation that was developed.

● Reminder there have not been any decisions made.

● Menu Survey and the reason why the district took a three-pronged approach to community engagement. This is to ensure the board sees data and feedback from different groups in the community - including members of the community leadership team (who have been more engaged and are more informed, asking questions, and providing feedback), including segments of the community that are a little bit informed (came to one of the sessions, saw the presentation), and getting feedback from those with little information via the phone survey (getting gut-level response and impressions of the ten buckets of work and the finance elements).

● Results and feedback received - noted in the community phone survey the first question asked was the individual's general impression of the school district. The favorability rating was 79%, and only 14% of those responding are holding a negative opinion. Those who conducted the survey noted this is a high favorability rating for a school district.

● None of the ten project buckets did not receive a positive or a plus rating.

● Of the project buckets, there were two that emerged as a top priority (both in the phone and in-person surveys) - Safety & Security and Infrastructure & Mechanical.

● Noted the more engaged people tended to lean heavier toward the infrastructure and mechanical, while the phone survey participants leaned heavier toward the safety and security bucket.

● Three buckets fell into the next echelon of rating - Special Education & Accessibility, Science Lab Classrooms, and General Classroom Improvements.

● The remaining five project buckets all had a level of support, but a lower priority and were not significantly separated. The order of the remaining five buckets: Performing Arts & Music Spaces, Library Learning Centers, Indoor Athletic & PE Spaces, Student Services Spaces, and Building Layout & Collaborative Spaces.

● Potential Funding Level Options - Low Funding Level (funds some improvements), Medium Funding Level (funds many improvements), High Funding Level (funds all improvements), and No Additional Funding For Our Schools.

● Feedback received - only 5% did not support any level of additional funding, while 89% did support at least one of the funding levels.

● The level of support around the high funding level - all three groups ranked the highest funding level first, then the medium funding level, followed by the low funding level. Noted the gap between those levels was narrower from the phone survey than it was from the other two survey groups.

● The goal tonight was to provide the information and feedback. The next step is to digest this, take the initial set of data, come back to some of the options created, intermix some of them (especially at the medium level), and retest through a second round of surveys to confirm or understand if there is different feedback. This will come back to the board in December and the administration will seek direction on where to go and to finalize/refine the concept plans.

There were questions and/or additional discussion on the following:

● The number of participants that went through the community engagement sessions or phone survey - how does that compare with prior surveys or other districts? Noted the phone Open Session Minutes – October 25, 2023 Page 10survey is consistent and set up to be a valid reliable survey that mirrors demographics in the community. The phone survey was targeted for a very specific number. The in-person piece - understand that is pretty consistent with what is seen when you open up an engagement opportunity.

● Was there any benchmarking on the funding options data (as it relates to other districts) to give context on how to interpret that data? That would be difficult to compare across districts and is unique to the individual district. Where you have comparable data are in questions that are asked consistently across all services.

● Did we have any favorability feedback from either before or after the failed or successful Jefferson referendum/question to know what percent of the community said yes or no? Did do a favorability survey around projects in front of the 2017 referendum, which was a larger one and the feedback was a tighter margin than the current data.

● Interpreting the scale on the feedback forms summary - this gives you the aggregate rating from 1-10 from all that participated in the survey. The number listed for each project (lower numbers indicate higher priority) is the average ranking among the respondents.

● From a data and analytic space, understanding the data and what went into it, and having confidence in the data.

● Descriptions of the projects - hard to visualize and grasp the magnitude of the changes until you see something. Hard to conceptualize on a piece of paper. How can we help people understand what each of the projects will mean? As we move forward into decisions and concept design, will come close to some visuals to help see it.

● Conceptual layouts and what spaces would look like - when will we see that? After December when direction and feedback from the board is received.

● Monroe concept in collaboration with the park district - is this a viable option? The district has not done anything more with this, wanted to see how the PE /Athletic spaces feedback came back.

● At one of the community engagement sessions, it was noted that the sum of the costs of the different initiatives exceeds the funding options. Noted the economies of scale and some overlap. Important to help people understand there are some synergies to be found as you weave this together.

● Explaining how learning would be different in the space with the improvements. This may be helpful to the community.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – Agenda Items & Non-Agenda Items

None

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION

There being no further business to come before the Board in Open Session, Member Hjerpe moved, Member Kulovits seconded to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice call being taken, all were in favor. The motion carried 5-0.

The meeting adjourned at 8:43 PM.

https://core-docs.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/3696/CUSD200/3711686/Minutes_10.25.23__COW.docx.pdf