APPROVED:  January 9, 2008

Hollis School Board

October 10, 2007






Bill Beauregard, Chairperson

Jennifer MacLeod, Vice Chairperson

Jim McCann, Board secretary

Susan Benz


STAFFBetsy Packard, Temporary Recording Secretary




Richard Pike, Superintendent of Schools

Gail Paludi, Principal, Hollis Primary School

Carol Thibaudeau, Principal, Hollis Upper Elementary School

Debbie Trottier, Assistant Principal/Special Education Administrator, HPS

Candi Fowler, Assistant Principal/Special Education Administrator, HUES

Dawna Duhamel, Business Administrator

Carol Mace, Director of Curriculum

Bob Kelly, Director of Special Education



Others present included members of the Public.



1.         CALL TO ORDER


Chair. Beauregard called the meeting to order at 6:11 p.m.


2.         APPROVAL OF SCHOOL BOARD MINUTES – August 30, 2007


Susan Benz moved that the Board approve the minutes of August 30, 2007 as written.  Jim McCann seconded.  Motion carried unanimously.  4 – 0 – 0.




A.      Agenda Additions and Deletions


Chair. Beauregard informed the Board that he would be traveling the week of November 14th and asked the Board if they would be agreeable to change the monthly Board meeting to November 7th


Supt. Pike pointed out that the Proposed 2007-2008 Budget is due that meeting.  He wondered if the meeting could be held the week after the 14th.  Board members agreed that they would prefer receiving the budget electronically; therefore, it would not be necessary to have the budget ready by November 7th


It was decided to move the November Board meeting to November 7, 2007.




            B.   Administration Reports


i)         October 1st Enrollment


      It was reported that as of October 1, 2007 there were 793 students in the Hollis School District as follows:


                              Hollis Preschool                           22

                              Hollis Primary                             372

                              Hollis Upper Elementary              399


ii)       Special Education Program Evaluation Results


      Mr. Kelly introduced Ms. Trottier, Assistant Principal/Special Education Administrator at the Hollis Primary School, and Candi Fowler, Assistant Principal/Special Education Administrator at the Hollis Upper Elementary School.


      Mr. Kelly reported that at this point in time, there is no need for new professional staff for the projected FY 2008-2009.  There may be a need for one or two paraprofessionals due to unanticipated transfers.


      On-Site Report Outline


      Mr. Kelly reported that both schools showed high levels of proficiency on the Program Approval Report.  Some of the strengths cited were:  Skilled and dedicated staff, collaboration between general and special education staff, significant resources, and staff is pupil focused. 


      Mr. Kelly stated that three areas stood out:


·         Access to curriculum


Strong programs for special education students

Curriculum is individualized


·         Transition planning


Considerable time is spent on transitioning between schools


·         Behavioral intervention


Much time and effort is put into behavioral intervention.


      Ms. Fowler continued reporting on the On-Site Report.  She informed the Board that professional development is on-going and that the manual is constantly being updated. 


       Chair. Beauregard asked about the make-up of the DoE Evaluation team. Mr. Kelly stated that this was a state-required evaluation by the Dept. of Education. The state goes through its own evaluation from the federal government. The team is a composite of other special educators in the state. The majority were directors or administrators such as principals or special education as well as some special education staff from other districts. There were several team members who were allocated to each of the schools in the SAU.


      Ms. Fowler stated professional development is on-going and mostly in-house.and the amount of training is dependent on their position.


      Chair. Beauregard asked if the manual was online.  Ms. Fowler responded that it wasn’t.  Chair. Beauregard stated that there had been discussion about getting it online since June 2006 and asked if there was an estimated time for doing so.    Ms. Fowler explained that the manual is constantly changing and that they needed to have legal counsel look at it before it could go online.  Mr. Kelly added that the manual is under revision because special education statutes are being reviewed, the Department of Education was still working on their rules and regulations, so they will be adjusting the manual for another year.


      Ms. Fowler reported that the Hollis School District was found to have many strengths at the building level.   Collaboration between the general and special education staff was impressive.  The level of staff was also impressive and were found to be doing well.  It was suggested that additional support could be used to address emotional needs.  They now have additional support through a school psychologist. 


      Ms. Fowler stated that the following areas are being examined for continued improvement:


·         Collaboration between general and special education staff.


·         Data-driven decision making

o        SAU-wide could use improvement, sharing the use of formal tests, informal tests, and what they are doing in the classroom.
Chair. Beauregard asked whether local special ed. assessment data is something the district is looking to capture in Performance Pathways software and are some assessment data a higher priority than others.  Principal Paludi responded that special ed. local assessment data is unique to special education students and to each student depending on their needs so it isn’t a priority to include in Performance Pathways.


·         Student progress reports

o        Have switched to the NHSEIS (NH Special Education Information System) System.  Progress is noted for every objective and goal on top of report cards.  The Special Education staff also call meetings with parents.  Progress reports are individualized based upon what parents want.


Mr. McCann asked that the NHSEIS be explained.  Ms. Fowler stated that the NHSEIS is a new system that is web-based.  It helps make sure that a district is meeting the requirements of the federal laws.  Previously, there was no uniform system for doing this, now there is.  Mr. Kelly added that it is a system that the districts are required to report to the State Special Education Department, who in turn, must report to the federal department.


Mr. McCann asked if the system could run reports.  Ms. Fowler responded that all the information is in the system, but it cannot run summary evaluation reports on student performance at this time.


Chair. Beauregard asked how labor intensive it was for the staff to enter the information into the system.  Mr. Kelly responded that it has been labor intensive because it is new and the staff is learning it.  He added that the State looks at the number of Special Education students, what the age levels are, etc.  The program is not student progress driven.


      Ms. Fowler explained that the NWEAs will show a student’s data points multiple times a year.  She added that they can track the NECAPs, but they are not as good.  She stated that they can look at formal testing, but these tests are not going to be the same for all students.


      Mr. Kelly pointed out that the NHSEIS monitor if legal types of assessments are being done, and are done when they are required.


      Chair. Beauregard asked if it was now easier reporting to the State than in the past.  Ms. Fowler responded that it was and felt that it would also get better.


·         Communication between home and parent


·         Professional development



·         Staff assignments


      Parent Survey Data Summary


      Ms. Fowler explained that the survey was developed by the NH Department of Education.  There were 107 surveys sent – one to each family of an identified student.   37 surveys were returned for a 35% participation rate.  There were 11 questions that pertained to all families.


      The following is the percentage rates regarding satisfaction with the Special Education program and procedures:


                  81%         complete satisfaction

                  13%         partially satisfied

                  0.005%    not satisfied (2 responses)


      Ms. Benz pointed out that the majority of people responding to the survey were satisfied.  In most surveys, you get people who are not happy.


      Chair. Beauregard commented that surveys are usually reported by number of responses of each type to each question. Ms. Fowler replied that the information is in the report.


iii)      Data Driven Decision-making Initiatives – goals for this year


      Chair. Beauregard commented that principals are looking to correlate local assessment data with NECAP and NWEA data. Intent of Data Driven Decision making in general is to do something cheaper, faster or better. What is it this year that will affect the students that we are looking to do cheaper, faster or better?

Ms. Mace reported that the organizational meeting of the Data Team is set for October 12, 2007.  They will be discussing goals, objectives, and timelines.  She noted Board feedback from last meeting: system should support, not burden the principals, need for Assessment Builder and when we should incorporate that Performance Pathways software module, security issues and how each type of assessment would be used, for example would it be used to set priorities for the school or be used to develop goals for the students. She asked if there were any other things the Board would like the team to look at.


      Chair. Beauregard felt it was important that the Principals get what they need from the committee.  Ms. Mace responded that the Principals will be at the meeting.  Ms. Paludi stated that they need to look at how to use the data collected in the most efficient way possible to drive instruction for student learning. Our ultimate goal is for student learning across the continuum of abilities from low to high. In order to efficiently and effectively use that data we need a system that will allow us to do that with push button reporting  She added that this will be discussed at the meeting.


      Chair. Beauregard inquired about Assessment Builder, a tool used to enter local assessment data, such as report card data into the system for queries and correlations with standardized test data from NECAP and NWEA, which are loaded by the state.  Ms. Mace responded that she will give an update at the next meeting. Chair. Beauregard inquired when parents might begin to see results of this, could it be at January parent / teacher conferences. Principal Paludi responded that teachers will receive training November 1 on NWEA reports that will enable them to discuss test results at mid-year parent / teacher conferences.


iv)      Business Office


Ms. Duhamel reported that the MS25 and DOE25 were sent to the State on time.


Chair. Beauregard stated that he was interested in seeing a maintenance plan.  He pointed out that they now have an assessment by Hutter.  He added that he would like to see how Hutter’s report is going to be funded, that is, what was encumbered in the 2007 budget, the 2008 budget, through the contingency budget and the 2009 budget.  He asked if Ms. Duhamel could provide such a report.  She responded that it was already worked out in pencil on the report, so she could easily prepare it for the Board.


v)        Reports


                        Hollis Primary School


                        Ms. Paludi extended compliments to Lee Barnard and Ellen Lencsak who wrote and received a Title IV grant for $1895.00.    The funds will be used for social skills program, bullying prevention programs, and health program materials.


                        Chair. Beauregard asked if there was a need for training materials and/or support for grant writing.  Ms. Paludi responded that there absolutely was.  They are currently working on a recyclables grant.  She felt it would be great to be able to tap into a professional grant writer or take a grant-writing workshop.  Chair. Beauregard asked if there was a central clearing-house on the Internet where one could go to find what grants are available.  Ms. Paludi responded that there was.


                        Hollis Upper Elementary School


                        Ms. Thibaudeau reported that the Curriculum Administrators will be writing a column every month for the newsletter.


                        Director of Curriculum


                        Ms. Mace stated that she will be posting the Child Growth Model report on the website.  She added that even though the disability sub-group did not make AYP (Annual Yearly Progress), they are making progress.  Ms. Fowler has done a report on this.


                        Ms. Fowler reported that the NECAPs are only one piece in showing progress, and that piece indicates that the Special Education group is not making progress fast enough.  This doesn’t mean that they aren’t making progress, but rather, they are not making the progress needed to meet No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 2014 deadline.  They need to be on a fast track in order to meet the NCLB requirements.


                        Ms. Fowler explained that the Special Education teams look at a lot of data, and if the child is not benefiting from the program they are currently on, then the team evaluates the program and sees what needs to be changed in order to make progress.  When they look at that cohort, they know they have problems processing data.  Sometimes it can be overcome by identifying strategies that can help.  There are a myriad of services for students.  One must also remember that tests can be anxiety provoking for some students.


Chair. Beauregard stated that he was trying to get a sense of what the District’s expectations of the NECAPs were.  Are they used diagnostic-wise (how a child is doing), planning-wise, or comparative-wise (how does the Hollis School District relate to other districts)?   Principal Thibaudeau responded that the purpose of the NECAPs is to see how a district is doing with its curriculum.  Chair. Beauregard questioned that the NECAPs were for programming not for student assessment.  Ms. Thibaudeau agreed.  She pointed out that the NECAPs were just one snapshot of a child’s progress.  As an example, if all children fell below in geometry, then a district would know that they needed to beef up their geometry program.


Mr. McCann pointed out that the District didn’t make AYP this year and wondered what will happen if they don’t make it next year.  Ms. Paludi responded that if the same cohort doesn’t make AYP two years in a row, then there is a set procedure that must be followed.


Ms. MacLeod questioned what happens if the same cohort doesn’t meet “proficiency,” yet makes progress.  Ms. Mace responded that they would then apply “Safe Harbor” (10% progress).  This is used when a cohort shows progress, but doesn’t meet AYP.  Ms. Fowler pointed out that when they test each year, the cohort is a different group of students.


Chair. Beauregard asked if the performance of Special Education cohort 2006 gives them any information on their program.  Ms. Fowler responded that it takes a long time to get the data back, but they have in-house programs that they can look at and assess.


Chair. Beauregard asked if the State provided any information on how other districts do things.  Ms. Mace responded that there is a State association that shares “best practices.”


Ms. MacLeod stated that the NECAPs seem to be flawed on many levels:  first, the test is given in the fall, but results are not available until well over halfway through the school year, and therefore, there is a large lag time to make needed changes to the curriculum based on the test.  Second, mathematically, the proficiency percentages are calculated in such a way that a student who just barely scores into the “Proficient” category is multiplied by a factor of 100, which produces inflated proficiency figures.  Third, the percentage of correct answers needed for a score of “Proficient” is not consistent, and in some cases can be as low as getting only 50% of the questions correct.  Compared with a traditional grading system, where a grade of 50% would indicate a failing “F” grade, it seems nonsensical that a 50% score would garner a “Proficient” score on the NECAP.

  Ms. MacLeods asked Supt. Pike and Carol Macewhat repercussions the HSD would face specifically if the NECAP test were not administered.  Ms. MacLeod further stated that the NWEA test and data was much more informative and actionable than NECAP’s, and that she would prefer the Hollis elementary schools place their testing time and dollars in NWEA instead of NECAP in the future.  Ms. Mace responded that NECAPs are useful if they are kept in prospective.


Ms. Benz felt that when they get the NWEAs should be given as much press as the NECAPs are given.  Chair. Beauregard felt they should plan sessions to explain to parents what the NWEAs are.


vi)      Draft Article to Hollis/Brookline Journal


Chair. Beauregard stated that a Hollis/Brookline Journal article was published stating that Hollis School District had failed.  It did not do justice as to what is going on in the schools.  He added that he wanted to touch base with the Board and the Administrators regarding an article he had drafted for the Journal and see if they agree with it.  He informed the Board that the deadline for submission is next Tuesday by noon.


Ms. MacLeod felt that the last bullet should be deleted.  She does not feel the numbers are true representations and would be misleading to the average member of the public.  She felt that the NECAPcalculations are flawed, and should not be included in the article for the reasons mentioned earlier in the NECAP discussion.;.


Ms. Benz asked if the article reported the test data.  Chair. Beauregard responded that the article only listed schools that made AYP and the schools that did not.  Ms. Benz stated that if the numbers were not put in, then she felt that they should put the numbers in.  Ms. Mace stated that AYP is based upon numbers; therefore, she felt they should have the numbers.  She added that her last report on the web explains the numbers.


Ms. MacLeod pointed out that the picture is much bigger.   She stated that independent educational think tanks, such as the DC-based Fordham Foundation, have examined the Grade Level Equivalents for every state, and that according to their analyses, the state of NH’s GLEs are not very rigorous.  In fact, the math GLEs were given a grade of “F.”  Because the NECAP’s entire foundation is based upon the NH GLEs, if the GLEs are considered to be sub-par, then by correlation, the NECAP is as well.    Ms. MacLeod stated that she feels to publish Proficiency percentages of 94%, for example, would be misleading, as the calculation of that percentage is in question in her mind, as well as the basic challenge level of the test.


Chair. Beauregard questioned if the numbers were on the web somewhere, and if so, suggested that they take the last bullet and state, “Both schools made AYP as a district, but this is focused on one subset.  For more information go to <blank> . “


Chair. Beauregard stated that he would make the changes to the draft and send out the revised copy to Board members and the Administration for a final look.


4.         PUBLIC FORUM


            Chair. Beauregard opened the floor up for questions regarding Special Education, AYP, or the NECAPs.


            Janet Merrithew, 19 Forest View Drive, Hollis, asked when the visitation took place.  Mr. Kelly responded that it took place on March 21-22 of last year.

            Ms. Merrithew stated that there had been parent discussion and wondered if there was any information regarding that.  Mr. Kelly responded that there had been discussion regarding parent input.  The survey showed that the biggest parent concern was getting feedback.  Ms. Merrithew felt there were other parent concerns brought forth during the discussions.  Chair. Beauregard asked if anyone took notes during that meeting.  Ms. Merrithew stated that she did.  Chair. Beauregard suggested that Ms. Merrithew review the notes and see if the concerns were being met.


5.         BUDGET


            Chair. Beauregard stated that he had looked at the Principals’ spreadsheets and questioned that the Special Education accounts did not represent the whole Special Education budget.  Mr. Kelly responded that the spreadsheets only account for Special Education materials.  Ms. Paludi added that the Special Education accounts on the spreadsheets are only what the Principals have control over, that is, materials.


            Chair. Beauregard asked if the spreadsheets were inclusive of Bob Blais’ maintenance.  Ms. Paludi stated that she had not included her priorities in the maintenance portion.


            Ms. Duhamel stated that she does not have numbers for the budget because they don’t have a staff contract.  She asked if the Board wanted her to plug a number in.  Chair. Beauregard felt they needed to model a spreadsheet to show what 1.8% actually means.  Supt. Pike pointed out that they won’t know health insurance increases until December.  He added that salary benefits will come out of warrant articles, not the budget; therefore, he suggested that they plug in current contract numbers.  Ms. Duhamel stated that she would have to calculate step increases based on the current contract.  Chair. Beauregard added that track changes would also have to be calculated in.  Ms. Duhamel stated that she had sent out an email asking staff to let her know if they had a step/track change.


            Chair. Beauregard stated that  the FY08 budget had a $450,000 increase in salary and benefits; therefore, with the cost of contracts under negotiation and unknown, he felt they needed to look at the budget to see where cuts might be made to get to the Budget Committee’s guidelines of 1.8% increase.  He felt they should show what the cut-off is, which would show what would not be funded at the 1.8% increase.


            Ms. Duhamel questioned producing two budgets as follows:


1)       A budget supporting current budget items

2)       A budget showing what would be cut at the 1.8% increase



            Ms. Paludi stated that she must prioritize her budget if they are going with 1.8% increase.


            Supt. Pike pointed out that the 1.8% excludes certain items per the Budget Committee.


            Chair. Beauregard stated that 1.8% increase means a $154,000 increase.  He added that they needed to look at efficiencies within the budget.  He pointed out that taking the aggregate salary number, add 3%, and adding benefits (7%) it comes to $309,000, and it needs to be  $158,000.  Therefore, they are looking at structural stuff.  He added that salary/benefits account for 75% of the budget, while 20% of the budget is Special Education.  He felt they needed to look at what they want to champion and then explain why.


            Supt. Pike felt it was important for parents to give the Board their feedback regarding their feelings of the Budget Committee’s guidelines.  Mr. McCann pointed out that there will be a hearing in December.  He wondered if that was the best time for parents to get involved.  Chair. Beauregard pointed out that there are two Board meetings that the public can give input on.  Budget Hearings are set for Dec. 20, Jan. 20, and Feb. 13.


            Chair. Beauregard stated that 20.5% of the overall budget last year was for Special Education.  He added that 87% of the Special Education budget fell within seven areas:


                                    28%      Aides

                                    19%      Teachers/Paraprofessionals

                                    19%      Speech

                                    11%      Out of district placements

                                     9%      Administration

                                     9%      Psychology

                                     5%      Travel  


            Ms. Benz asked what the police are for.  Ms. Paludi responded that when they have special events, police are needed due to traffic.  She added that there had been changes in the police hourly rate and the number of hours they have to hire them for.  Ms. Paludi added that once they get Ms. Duhamel’s budget, she will sit down with Ms. Thibaudeau and they will prioritize their budgets.


            Chair. Beauregard wondered why there were increases on the copiers when the copiers are leased.  Ms. Duhamel responded that the leases stay the same, but the maintenance contracts increase.


            Chair. Beauregard pointed out that HPS’s radiant heating system water pipes were treated last year to remove buildup and improve flow and wondered if any savings had been realized.  Ms. Paludi responded that they hadn’t gone through one full winter yet, so it is hard to know.


            Chair. Beauregard asked about the computer teaching supplies, specifically, the digital camera.  He wondered if it included other equipment.  Principal Thibaudeau responded that it should have been “cameras.”


            Chair. Beauregard asked about books for the library.  Principal Thibaudeau responded that one book per student is what is recommended.


            Chair. Beauregard stated that the HUES soccer field has several bare spots.  He pointed out that there was $1000 in the budget for fields.  He asked if money had been budgeted for seeding the soccer field.   Ms. Duhamel stated that she would check into it.


            Ms. Thibaudeau asked that the Board keep the recommendation for an increase in pay for substitute teachers and nurses.  She stated that $65.00 a day wasn’t doing it.  They can’t get people to come in at that price.  Chair. Beauregard asked Ms. Thibaudeau to send her recommendations to Ms. Duhamel.   Ms. Thibaudeau responded that she has a recommendation.  She added that in the 2001-2002 school year, Penacook was paying their permanent substitutes $110 per day.


            Chair. Beauregard asked that Ms. Duhamel prepare a detailed report on Food Services so that the Board can see where the expenses are.  Mr. Duhamel asked if Chair. Beauregard had anything in mind, such as a sales report.  Chair. Beauregard  responded that anything that is being purchased or expended.




            Supt. Pike stated that two committees had been charged with the tasks in the last CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) agreement.


            He reported that the first meeting with negotiations, packets were presented to the Association and Board on research the committee did on the paraprofessional issue.


            Supt. Pike stated that he wanted to thank the committee for all their work.


            Supt. Pike stated that packets on performance based research would be presented at the next meeting.  




            Supt. Pike informed the Board that he had received a letter of retirement from Priscilla Lavasseur, effective June 2008.


            Jim McCann moved that the Board accept the letter of resignation from Priscilla Lavasseur with regrets.  Jennifer MacLeod seconded.  Motion carried unanimously.  4 0 – 0 .


            Supt. Pike informed the Board that Annebelle Harris had submitted a letter of resignation as the Hollis School Board Recording Secretary.


8.         PUBLIC FORM - continued


            Penny Arsenault, President of the HESSA, stated that she would like to talk to the Board about the data/information that had been collected by the Benefits Committee.


            Chair. Beauregard stated that he would like the Committee to summarize the source data then send it electronically to the Board members.  Ms. Arsenault responded that they could carry out the request.


9.         POLICIES


            Supt. Pike informed the Board that the NH School Board Association’s (NHSBA) recommended policies are more stringent in that they use the wording “shall” and the statutes use the wording “may.”


            Ms. Paludi informed the Board that they had a leadership meeting in which they discussed policies at the SAU.  They looked for the best wording to maintain the safety of the students.`


            Policy IJOC – Volunteers   (First Reading)


            Ms. Paludi stated that she had concerns with the wording of the policy.  She felt it should be changed to say “volunteers will be screened” and not differentiate between being along with a child or not.  Ms. Benz felt such wording would make a huge impact on the volunteer program.  Also, it would be costly for the District to run background checks on all the volunteers.


            Supt. Pike stated that he listened to an attorney that day who was talking about volunteers.  When fingerprints are submitted to the FBI, it pretty much covers all states.  The statue allows volunteers to go through the same scrutiny as the staff – a full record check.  Once a teacher goes through a record check, it is not done again.  Maine has just instituted checks every 5 years.


            Ms. Thibaudeau felt they needed to define “volunteer.”  She wondered how this policy would affect the guest readers.  She felt more definition was needed.


            Ms. Benz pointed out that the ski program would soon be starting, which takes a lot of volunteers.  She added that once the students get to the mountain, they go off with their instructors, who have not been screened and the District knows nothing about them.  Ms. Benz stated that the Girl Scouts of America have a policy that two adults must be with the children at all times.


            Mr. McCann felt that there was a difference between volunteers outside of the school versus inside the school.  While volunteers are inside the school there are teachers and other staff around.


            Ms. Paludi felt they should look at defining “volunteers” better.


            Ms. MacLeod pointed out that background checks only show major felonies.  Ms. MacLeod stated that someone could have a conviction pending and it wouldn’t show up.


            Supt. Pike felt that the Board should go with the Principals’ feelings as to what would be in the best interest of the child’s safety.


            Chair. Beauregard wondered if saying they must always have two adult present would solve the issue.  He added that subs could always come in for field trips.  Ms. MacLeod pointed out that parents always want to go on field trips, but there typically isn’t enough room with the current chaperone ratios.  She felt having two adults present per field trip group may be a good solution.  It would prevent one adult from being alone with children, it would allow more parents to participate in field trips, and it wouldn’t impact the budget, as parents usually provide their own transportation.


            Ms. Paludi informed the Board that the third grade teachers had a field trip to Sturbridge in November pending because of this policy.  The Board’s decision, or lack thereof, will impact the trip.


            Supt. Pike wondered if they could come up with a policy with a definition of a “designated volunteer,” then the Principals could develop a procedure for the policy identifying what they felt covered the criteria.  He added that newly adopted RSA 189a, basically states that a school district is immune form civil/liability lawsuit if they acted in good faith.  Supt. Pike pointed out that the Rotary comes in to work in the classrooms.  If they work with a teacher, perhaps a background check would not be required.


            Chair. Beauregard pointed out that a background check is not failsafe and doesn’t give any guarantees.  He asked if there would be undo burden if they changed the policy to requiring two adults at all times.  Ms. Thibaudeau stated that she would have to think about it.


            Ms. Benz stated that she would like to set the policy of requiring two adults or more at all times.    Chair. Beauregard stated if they cannot get enough volunteers for two adults for every group, then they will have to put two groups together.


            Mr. McCann stated that background checks are not a guarantee, but are a step in the right direction.  He added that he would like to see programs for children regarding what to do around strangers.


            Chair. Beauregard stated that they perhaps needed the policy to state that two volunteers, or one volunteer and one staff member, must be with student(s) at all times.  Supt. Pike wondered if that should be policy or procedure.  He felt that everyone was in agreement that not every volunteer must go through a background check, but wondered if the Principals should set procedures as to who needs to have a background check.


            Ms. Paludi stated that until Policy IJOC was accepted, she would like to see two adults at all times.  Chair. Beauregard added that supervision, or direction, of staff means within sight of the volunteer at all times.  Chair. Beauregard  noted that the sense of the discussion is that Policy IJOC  does not need to be updated at this time. However procedures need to ensure students are supervised by more than one adult.


            Chair. Beauregard  noted that the sense of the discussion is that Policy ABA did not need to be updated at this time.


            Policy IMAH – Health Education  - Daily Physical Activity    (Second Reading)


            Supt. Pike wondered if they wanted to have the actual time (30 – 60 minutes daily) of recommended exercise in the policy.  Ms. Thibaudeau pointed out that the policy stated “each day,” not “school day.”  She added that as written, can mean after school activities also.  Thus, she was ok with the policy.


            Chair. Beauregard stated that the policy spoke about “encouraging;” therefore, he felt it was for the District to teach about proper physical education and if the child didn’t follow it, at least they have learned why it is important.


            Ms. Paludi felt they could take out the specific minutes.


            Ms. MacLeod stated that she would prefer the policy consist only of the introductory paragraph, and not include any of the specific points below.  She stated that she is fully in support of the importance of physical activity for children, but that the policy seems to have an agenda in mind, and she would not like to see the primary curriculum functions of the school usurped by a phys ed agenda.  For example, Ms. MacLeod pointed out that Item # 3 states “Integrate health and physical activity across the school curriculum.”  She stated that it is her impression that the curriculum is pretty dense already, and that to require teachers to integrate physical activity to math and reading would be both difficult and ridiculous.  She wondered if they would be counting jumping jacks during math.  Chair. Beauregard pointed out that they could calculate caloric intake.


            Ms. MacLeod further stated that she also would cut out Item # 9, requiring a tracking and evaluation method.  Mr. McCann agreed.



            Supt. Pike stated that he would take out Item # 9 and the 30 – 60 minutes.  He felt leaving the time in would allow a parent to come forth and want the school to show how the child is getting 30 – 60 minutes a day.  Ms. Paludi stated that the children have a 15-minute and a 20-minute recess each day.  They also get physical education for 45 minutes once a week.   Ms. Benz felt if they took out the 30 – 60 minutes, it would be general enough.


            Chair. Beauregard stated that he had concerns with Item # 9.  Supt. Pike stated that if they left Item # 9 in, then they would have to come up with some way to track a child’s progress, and he was not sure they could do that.  Ms. Paludi stated that the physical education teacher tracks a child’s progress, but that was on a weekly basis, not a daily basis.


            Supt. Pike suggested that “Institute a tracking and evaluation method to” be stricken from the policy, and therefore would read: “Ensuring that all students are engaging in developmentally appropriate daily physical activity.”


            Ms. MacLeod felt that they needed to let the Principals talk to the physical education teachers and get their input.


            Jennifer MacLeod moved that the Board table the motion to accept Policy IMAH.  Susan Benz seconded.  Motion carried unanimously.  4 – 0 – 0.


            Policy EEAED – Receipt and Use of Sex Offender Registry Information  (Second Reading)


                Supt. Pike informed the Board that most of the people who had been at the meeting he attended that day liked Policy EEAED as written.


            Chair. Beauregard was not sure that the headings were correct.  He stated that the header “Precautions on School Property” needed to be added after the paragraph “Registry information will be used for the administration of law-enforcement, screening current or prospective school district employees or volunteers, and for the protection of the district’s students and employees.”  Also, the header “Precautions to Protect Students” should read Precautions Outside School Property.”


            Jennifer MacLeod moved that the Board accept Policy EEAED – Receipt and Use of Sex Offender Registry Information with the following amendments:


1.    “Precautions on School Property” be inserted after the paragraph starting “Registry information will be used for the administration of law-enforcement,” and


2.     The header “Precautions to Protect Students” should read Precautions Outside School Property.”


               Jim McCann seconded.  Motion carried unanimously.   4 – 0 – 0.


10.        PUBLIC FORUM - Continued


            Maura Loftus, 38 Fletcher Lane, Hollis addressed the Board.  She felt that the Board should not include a certain amount of time in Policy IMAH, adding that parents will then expect it.  She stated that she saw this happen in another school district.


            Ms. Loftus stated that the PTA appreciates the discussion the Board had regarding volunteers.  She informed the Board that the PTA was working on adopting a policy regarding child safety and added that they would like to work with the Board on this.


            Ms. Merrithew addressed the Board stating that she would like to see an outline of what will be discussed on a certain night.


11.        POLICIES - Continued


            Supt. Pike felt that the Board should look at the remaining policies at the next meeting.  This way, the Administrators would have time to go over them.  Plus, the new policies, which have come out of the 2007 legislation, need to be looked at.  He stated that one new policy regards having a school safety plan in place. He added that there is going to be a workshop on this topic, which Bob Blais, Tracey Dunn, and key people from Hollis will be attending.


            Policy KF – Use of School Buildings and Facilities  (Second Reading)


            Chair. Beauregard wondered if the Board needed to discuss this policy that night.  Supt. Pike pointed out that if they wanted to charge for use of the facilities, then they should.  However, it involves little amount of money, so he felt they could hold off. 


            Supt. Pike stated that he would like to reverse his previous recommendation in light of the fact that it is a small amount of money.  He felt they should keep the policy as is and monitor it for another year.


            Chair. Beauregard felt they should have a designated individual directly responsible for overseeing that the room is used appropriately and the facility is picked up.    Supt. Pike responded that that was the responsibility of the group using the facility.


            Ms. Thibaudeau stated that she had sent her guidelines to Supt. Pike that day.  She added that the guidelines are clear and if the group requesting use of the facility doesn’t want to follow the guidelines, then they don’t get to use the facility.


            Policy KI – Visitors to the Schools 


            Supt. Pike informed the Board that he has asked legal counsel to look at this policy and give additional language.


            It was decided to table the discussion on the rest of the policies until the next meeting.






            Chair. Beauregard stated that he wanted to discuss goals and quantifying measures that assure goals are being met by the staff.


            Supt. Pike stated that he had sent a memo to the Administrators to look at goals and see if they have any changes they want to make.


            Board Meeting Spaces


            Supt. Pike stated that he would check on the availability of the Middle School Multi-purpose room for the November 7th meeting.


            Chair. Beauregard stated that he would like to keep the meetings televised.   He suggested that they could look into the Hollis Town Hall Community Room, which has televising capabilities.  He asked that Ms. Lindgren check with Debbie Adams.


            School Calendar


            Ms. MacLeod stated that upon looking at the school calendar, she noticed the following three conflicts:


1.    SAU Meeting on November 1, 2007.  She pointed out that the NWEA Parents’ Information Night was also scheduled for that same night.


2.       Budget Committee meets on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays.  The 4th Tuesday in December is the 25th.


3.       The March 12, 2008 Hollis School Board meeting is also the same night as the first night of Town Meeting.


            Chair. Beauregard stated that he will have Ms. Lindgren drop the March 12th meeting.


            Blue Ribbon Award for Volunteers


            Supt. Pike informed the Board that next Monday the Hollis School District would be recognized by NH Partners in Education with the Blue Ribbon Award for Volunteers.  The award ceremony will take place in Manchester.  He added that Hollis has been recognized for the past 14 – 15 years.


            Jim McCann moved that the Board adjourn.  Jennifer MacLeod seconded.  Motion carried unanimously.  4 – 0 – 0.


            The Board adjourned at 9:53 p.m.